The series of
volumes published by Christian History Project, “The Christians: Their First
Two Thousand Years”, is an impressive collection of well-designed and
beautifully crafted books that will, without doubt, be very appealing to the
populace. Its shape and format, along with its glossy pages with stunning full
colour photographs and artwork could hardly fail to attract attention.
However, the
true value of a book does not lie in the way it looks; and here particularly,
is the truth of that old adage – “Judge not a book by its cover”! And so, as
objectively as is possible, I present my response to the first of the books in
the series – “The Veil is Torn, A.D. 30 to A.D. 70: Pentecost to the
Destruction of Jerusalem”.
Being
interested in History, particularly, with the History of the Christian Church,
it was with much excitement that I borrowed this book and began reading it.
However, to my surprise and, yes, dismay too, I found the book woefully
disappointing. I trust by the time you are done reading my response to just a
few issues I noticed in beginning the first chapter of the book, you will have
to agree with me that the author/s and/or editor/s have failed in presenting a
balanced and accurate ‘history’ of the early Christians. For convenience,
throughout this review, I will use the word ‘author’ to refer to the writer
and/or editor/s involved in writing this particular book.
First Things First
A good historian
writing history should present ‘facts’ – and facts are gathered from events that
have been accurately recorded and preserved down to our present times. Indeed,
this is so very basic to any historian, that we take it for granted that every
time we take up a book that deals with any kind of history, we are being
presented with facts. It is another matter that the author would usually
present his or her own personal views and opinions on how the facts are to be
explained. In point of fact, this assessment of facts and sifting of evidence
is really what makes the author credible in the eyes of the reader. Facts it is
that the reader is looking for, and facts it is that a good historian would
present – at least when writing a book that purports to present a history.
So how does
‘The Veil is Torn’ fare; does it present historical facts that readers would be
interested in and can reply upon, does it verify such facts and/or corroborate
them with quotations and references to older and reliable histories and/or
documents that have come down to us through reliable witnesses. And reliable
witness, whether an eye witness or the witness of one who was judicious in his accounts,
is what is most relied upon by a good and competent historian. Most world-class
historians rely upon verifiable and authoritative sources in compiling their
histories.
Present-day
historians usually rely on dependable authorities such as Flavius Josephus the
Roman-Jewish historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, and a host of other reliable
historian of the past to glean from their writings (and I did notice both of
these historians were listed in the index, which tells me that the author at
least referred to these historians). No historian “makes up” history; they
either record first hand events they wish to make a note of, or they search and
sift through available records of the past and present their findings to people
of their day.
The First Chapter
Reading
through the very first chapter of ‘The Veil is Torn’ entitled ‘Madman or God?’
was nothing less than a shocker. The back cover of the book informs readers the
purpose of the book – “Its purpose is to tell the story of the Christian
family, so that we may be knowledgeable of our origins…” However, judging from
the contents of its very first chapter, it seems that the book has terribly
failed in its purpose. Perhaps on second thoughts, I should rephrase that
sentence. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the author has distorted the
story and presented facts in a way in which he wished it to be told.
The second
paragraph of the first chapter reads, (page 11)
So now, there they were, these men, three dozen
or more, mostly in their twenties, streaming from that house into the street,
babbling like lunatics, and yelling out something about “the Coming of the Holy
Spirit.” They were drunk, obviously. A drunken debauch, and it was not even yet
noon. Was this any way to celebrate Pentecost, the Jewish feast that welcomed
the first harvest?
Since the book
is claimed to be “written and edited by Christians for Christians of all
denominations” (excerpt from the back cover), I may safely assume, no doubt at
my own risk, that the writer is a Christian and so is at least familiar with
the accounts in the New Testament (from henceforth, NT) of the Lord Jesus
Christ and His apostles and early disciples as recorded for us in the four
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The NT has been proved time and again as a
reliable and accurate record of eye witnesses and their associates. So reliable
are the NT records that most of us are able to determine the accuracy of other
records depending on how much or how little they differ from the NT records.
Now, comparing
the words just quoted above with the earliest record that we have of these
accounts in the NT, what do we find? – Glaring defects, deviations
and differences, in not just the details but an alarming sense of deliberate
distortions of the truth. And if there has been not this deliberate
distortion of the truth, when compared to the NT record, we would be forced to
conclude that the writer has been grossly misinformed. Indeed, the conclusion
that the writer is ignorant of the facts has to be decided against, since he does
mention a broad outline and overall picture of the NT events, in
their historical setting. However, even a cursory reading of the book will
expose the writer’s true beliefs and ideas. For really, it is beliefs that make
a man; and his beliefs are evidenced in his words. For indeed out of the heart
does the mouth speak!
Without much
further ado, let us then consider the words just quoted.
So
now, there they were, these men, three dozen or more, mostly in their twenties,
streaming from that house into the street, babbling like lunatics, and yelling
out something about “the Coming of the Holy Spirit.”
Note the following
facts presented in these words
1. There were about three dozen
men or more involved
2. They were in their twenties
3. They were streaming into the
street
4. They were babbling like
lunatics
5. They were yelling something
about the coming of the Holy Spirit
Let it be said
right at the outset that of the above 5 points, perhaps only the second one is
correct. And even so, it be clear that at least the apostle Peter was at least
30 years of age as he had to pay the temple tax; the rest of the disciples of
the Lord may have been in their early twenties. In any case, we’ll let this
point pass. As for the rest – There were more than three dozen men, they
were not streaming into any street, they were not
babbling, they were not acting like lunatics, and they were not yelling
just something!
Three Dozen Men
or More
The writer is
describing the ‘event’ or ‘scene’ immediately following the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as recorded for us in its true details in
Acts of the Apostles chapter 2.
However, upon
comparison with Acts 2, we notice that the writer has blundered very badly, to
say the least. Listen to what the historian Luke records as the events of the
Day of Pentecost unfolds in Chapter 2
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And
there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each
of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every
nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came
together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his
own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another,
Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in
our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and
strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them
speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and
were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said,
These men are full of new wine.
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said
unto them, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known
unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as ye suppose,
seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” (verses 1-15)
How anyone
having read Acts 2 could ever conclude as did the author is beyond me. In Acts
chapter 1 verse 15 we are specifically informed, “And in those days Peter stood
up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were
about an hundred and twenty,) and Peter goes on to address them, “Men,
brethren”. Clearly, we are allowed to conclude that there were then really at least
120 men gathered together with the 11 apostles in the ‘upper room’ on the Day
of Pentecost. That there may or may not have been any women at that time is
beside the point. From where then did the author get the picture of “three
dozen or more” men? Of course, 3 times 12 = 36 and 120 is more than 36! So
after all, the author is correct. However, the point I’d like to raise is at the
very heart of the matter. It is just this – the way we explain facts with
words. For this is, besides the truth that facts are of prime importance, the
second most important issue. Indeed, from my own experience and perspective, the
most important issue. For example, if I were to suggest that Canada has
a population of thirty-five thousand people or more – this would hardly be
taken as a fair statement. At the time of my writing, Canada’s population
stands at about 35.16 million, which translates into more than 35,000,000. So
for sure my statement is true in that we have 35,000 people or more. Anyone
can see, that I’ve only added the word more as a precautionary safeguard
so that I have something to fall back on when pressed for it. But it would also
mean that I perhaps wished to downplay the actual figure! However true I
might argue my statement is facts have been so completely distorted that you
might either conclude me as a very biased person or grossly misinformed.
So what do we
make of the author’s statement that he believes there were 3 dozen men or more?
Surely, he did not arrive at this number from the NT. Neither has he taken the
trouble to let his readers know from where he got this number. I noticed too
that there aren’t too many technical notes and/or footnotes in the book, which
is probably okay since the book was meant for the general crowd. (I did find a
bibliography at the end of the book. And under the very first section ‘General’
there were listed 13 works, the last of which was the NT in Modern English by J
B Phillips. I found this fact most peculiar. Why would anyone not list the NT
as the very first source of information? Apparently, all the other writers
carried more weight than the NT according to the Publishing and/or writing
committee!)
Be that as it
may, to reduce the number of men from 120 to 36; and then to add a few more
dozen – seems too trivial a point to harp about. And so with a smile, I
proceeded – only to note further errors and discrepancies.
Lunatics Roaming The Street!
According to
the author, these men were “streaming from that house into the street, babbling
like lunatics…” Not even this is from the NT. The NT says nothing about the
apostles and/or the 120 disciples who were gathered on that memorable morning
of the Day of Pentecost ‘streaming’ out into the street. What house and which
street – the author does not venture to inform the reader. Curious it is that an
author should open a book and chapter without any notice of a ‘house’ and a ‘street’.
But we’ll ignore this. However, the author is rather particular and sure that
they did stream out into the street (Interestingly, the NT does
record the name of a street called ‘Straight’).
The author has
taken the liberty of informing his readers that these men were “babbling like
lunatics”. Again, this is hardly the way the NT writer presents it. In fact,
far from ‘streaming’ into the street or streets, they remained in the upper
room where they were gathered for prayer. What the author refers to “babbling”
is what is described as the gift of speaking in foreign languages, a gift
bestowed by the Sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit. And with regards
to the proclamation that the apostle Peter makes concerning this ‘Gift’, the author
falsely classifies as “babbling like lunatics”. Even worse, the author has the
temerity to denounce them as drunken men. Furthermore, he states that these men
were babbling “something” about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Whereas
according to the NT, far from babbling something about the Holy Spirit,
these men were supernaturally endowed by the Holy Spirit. And they spoke
in foreign languages – languages which others many since there were many
gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost from around the world who
spoke and understood these languages perfectly. And their surprise was
precisely this – how could these plain ordinary Galileans speak foreign
languages which they have never learnt. Now then, the NT does record for us
that there indeed were others who mocked saying, “These men are full of new
wine”. Interestingly, the Greek word ‘others’
actually refers to other people of a different kind. And in the context, this
can only mean other people who did not understand any of the foreign languages
that were being spoken supernaturally by the disciples and apostles. Little
wonder, they mocked! How true that fools mock what they do not understand.
Furthermore,
the NT does not record anything of what ‘these men’ were saying or had said.
However, it does record for us Peter’s words on that memorable morning. Far
from babbling, he stood up along with the other 11 apostles and boldly explained
the Gift of the Holy Spirit. More importantly, he spoke to the assembled,
curious and puzzled crowd about God’s offer of forgiveness of sins through the
Lord Jesus Christ.
So why does
the author depict such wonderful events of the Day of Pentecost as recorded for
us in Acts chapter 2 in the way he did? Of a truth, this the author alone can
explain. Nonetheless we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the author
wishes to discredit the accounts of the NT writer regarding the events
surrounding the Day of Pentecost. One wonders as what makes a man want to
deliberately (we cannot for a moment image that a learned and qualified author,
who is also a Christian is ignorant of the NT) distort and or misrepresent facts
when writing past history.
However, as
readers we may and should judge all that we read with the utmost care,
especially books that claim to give us a ‘knowledge’ of history. And if the
very second paragraph of the first chapter is so full of errors and
distortions, what could we expect further on. The remaining portion was not any
better.
Streaming Lunatics… or Dancing in Celebration?
I turn to the next
page and here’s what I find. Continuing to describe the aforementioned scene of
the Day of Pentecost, the writer informs us, (page 12)
His
(the Lord Jesus Christ’s) followers, now dancing around the street and babbling
about “the Holy Spirit”, somehow became persuaded he (the Lord Jesus Christ)
had returned from the dead. “Risen” was the word they used. Indeed, they
insisted upon it, telling others they had repeatedly seen and talked to him and
convincing them to join their celebration.
So now the author
informs us that these men were actually dancing. The NT says nothing of
this, nor does any other reputed historian who has made any record of these
events. All of this is no doubt a fantastic fabrication and a figment of an
overly active imagination, which perhaps is okay. However, this simply won’t
do, where facts are concerned. Besides, isn’t the author contradicting himself?
How could a few drunken men streaming into the street, babbling something, be
also described as dancing? and be also be to convince others to join them in
their celebration ? This simply doesn’t make sense. If such a thing
happened, this without question would be worthy of being the most ‘historic’
event!
Babbling Something…?
The author
obviously is also rather fond of saying, and rather glibly, that these men were
‘babbling’ all along. However, as already pointed out, the NT says nothing of the
kind. Peter words were far from babblings, nor are the utterances of the others
who spoke in foreign languages by the power of the Holy Spirit anywhere close
to being classified as ‘babblings’. If the people present at that time did not
think so, what right does anyone living today think they have the right to say
so? Again, as already pointed out, it was only those to whom the languages were
incomprehensible that these men seemed like drunken! But please note that
drunken men do not speak coherently in any given language!
It is rather
strange, given the author’s point of view, that these men could, despite all
odds, convince others to “join their celebration”. It is odd too, to
think that they themselves had somehow become persuaded that the man,
Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death by crucifixion, is alive again. And yet
it does not seem to have occurred to the author to mention the real reason for
this strong belief the apostles and early disciples had. The NT makes it
abundantly clear, if anything, that the apostles and most of Jesus’ followers had
no sure hope that the Lord Jesus was to return from the dead. So skeptical were
they at first to believe the report of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ, the Lord Himself had to appear to them time and again. And one of them
even had to be rebuked for his unbelief. Besides, the testimony of Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Thomas, and many of the women who were part of
the company of the disciples, along with many other witnesses of the risen Lord,
some of over 500 were alive during the time of Paul – these all boldly testified
that they had indeed seen the risen Lord. Let it be noted that the resurrection
of the Lord Jesus Christ is not based on human testimony merely, but on the authoritative
Word of our God and the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Dead for Six Sabbaths?
The author’s careless
choice of words is most damaging and misleading. For example, the author very
loosely says (page 12),
…the
man Jesus, of Nazareth…had been dead for six Sabbaths.”
If the author
had written from the perspective of the Day of Pentecost, then it would have
been more accurate to say that 7 Sabbaths had passed since the day Jesus was
crucified, for Pentecost was 50 days after the Passover. But this error aside,
fact is Jesus was not now dead for six Sabbaths. He had risen on the 3rd
day after His crucifixion, just has He had said He would. Well, given the
author’s perspective, at least he should have said, the body was missing for
six Sabbaths. But no, although acknowledging that the body was indeed
missing after just a few days – according to the author, after 2 whole days –
he yet makes this statement most carelessly that it “had been… six Sabbaths”.
Clearly, he has no excuse for such loose and careless words which are
inaccurate.
The author has
not clearly presented the facts as recorded for us in the NT. From whatever other
source he has gathered his information, the author has definitely failed in
providing the reader an accurate account of the historicity of the death,
burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, he has not
written out the history of the events of the day of Pentecost accurately. Far
too many loose ends exist and far too many errors and slips seem to be the
order of his writings.
Jesus... Against the Temple?
The most
damaging element of the book however is the way in which the author writes
about the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Here are some of his words about the Lord
Jesus.
…the
man was plainly anti-Temple as well. He said, the imperishable building
itself,…was doomed. That made him equally offensive to the high priests whose
job was operating and preserving the Temple, and their party, the Sadducees.
Anyone
ignorant of the true facts as presented in the NT would naturally assume from
the above that Jesus had condemned the temple and its sacrificial institutions
openly in the presence of the high priests (here again the author keeps blundering
in referring to a plurality of High Priests, whereas the Jews could only have 1
High Priest at any given point of time!). However, one searches the NT in vain
to find any such condemnation the Lord Jesus Christ made before the High Priest
or any of the other priests. Nor did Jesus ever utter any statement derogatory
of the Temple. He did foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple building, but only to his immediate disciples did He devolve this. And
even then, it was with much feeling and sorrow that Jesus predicted the
destruction of the temple. Far from condemning the temple, Jesus had the
greatest respect for the Temple, which He rightly designated, ‘My Father
House’. Clearly, Jesus was not anti-Temple.
Inspired or Ingenious?
The author
quotes Caiaphas, the high priest (this time he at least gets it right in the
singular noun - the high priest) as saying, (page 13)
“Better
one man should suffer than the whole people”
The quotation
marks appear in the book and so I may safely assume the author intends the
readers to believe these words to be the very words spoken by the High Priest
himself. Furthermore, the author clearly gives the reader the impression that
Caiaphas’ advice was his own reasoning by adding,
Harsh,
certainly. But could you argue with his reasoning?
Upon examining
the NT evidence, we find something rather interestingly different. However much
I dislike J B Phillips’ translation of the New Testament in Modern English –
although it would be more accurate to call it a loose and free paraphrase
– I will quote the words of Caiaphas in full in their context for the benefit
of the reader.
But one of them, Caiaphas,
who was High Priest that year, addressed the meeting: "You plainly don't
understand what is involved here. You do not realise that it would be a good
thing for us if one man should die for the sake of the people - instead of the
whole nation being destroyed." (He did not make this remark on his own
initiative but, since he was High Priest that year, he was in fact inspired to
say that Jesus was going to die for the nation's sake - and in fact not for
that nation only, but to bring together into one family all the children of God
scattered throughout the world.) - John 11. 49
ff.
[Note: Brackets are part of the original translation by Phillips]
The
NT is very clear that Caiaphas’ words meant that one man should die for the
sake of the people. But the NT also makes it equally clear that Caiaphas
did not thus speak out of prudence or long-range insight but spoke those words
by inspiration, because he was the High Priest that year. It was the Spirit of
God who was speaking through Caiaphas in this instance. The author fails to make this known to his
readers.
The
Resurrection A Ruse?
The
author has obviously taken the liberty to write out his own imaginations. But
this will not do – no, not when you intend to write history. It would be
alright to use wonderful imaginations in writing fiction, not history. Here’s
another sample from the book from page 13,
Toward
dawn two days later, something happened. That seems conclusive enough. But what?
The guard fled, the stone was moved, and the body disappeared. How this
occurred, the authorities simply did not adequately explain. Clearly, they
said, his followers must have bribed the guard, somehow rolled away the great
stone and stolen the corpse. The obvious solution – to produce the man’s body
and have done with this nonsense – failed. The fact is, search though they
certainly did, they couldn’t find it.
According to
the author, something did happen – only he is unwilling to accept the
united testimony of the NT writers that the Lord Jesus Christ was indeed raised
from the dead on the third day after being crucified. The author more than once
says that the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus was after ‘two days’. Why this
insistence in putting it in this way? Of course when one says, “toward dawn two
days later” it is obvious that the third day morning is meant. However, I do
find this insistence on the part of the author rather peculiar, of not willing
to say that it was on the third day after the crucifixion that the Lord arose;
or for that matter – according to the author’s point of view – the body was
missing. Be that as it may, the author is definitely opposed to the view that
the Lord Jesus Christ indeed rose from the dead. Or is he trying to sow the
seeds of doubt and contradiction in our minds as to the exact number of days
the body of Jesus was in the tomb. After all, the Lord Himself more than once,
and plainly affirmed, that He would be crucified and be buried and rise again from
the dead after three days.
Roman Guards Ignoring their Duty!
The author agrees
that the guards fled and that the stone was moved. However, he fails to ask the
important question of why the guards should have fled? For a Roman soldier to
either flee or abandon his post while on duty meant the death penalty. And
therefore no Roman soldier would wish to be caught sleeping or being negligent
while on duty. There is an interesting episode in Acts 16 (verses 26-29) that
bears on our present discussion. We read
of a Philippian Jailer who was suddenly awakened out of his sleep because of an
earthquake; and fearing the prisoners had escaped was about to kill himself,
but didn’t do so because Paul called out to him from within the prison cell.
The point is clear, if the prisoners had escaped, the Roman Jailer would pay
for it with his own life. And yet, despite this terrible death penalty, we are
supposed to believe that the Roman guards stationed at the tomb of Jesus fled
on that particular Resurrection Sunday morning! And let’s remember we are here
talking about more than a few fully armed Roman Soldiers – not ordinary
weaklings. Besides, the tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ was ‘secured’ with a
Roman Seal. For anyone to tamper with or break a Roman seal also meant the
death penalty – crucifixion upside down! So who would even think of doing such
a thing? And for what purpose would anyone want to break a Roman Seal and enter
a dead man’s tomb, first thing in the morning? The disciples of the Lord Jesus
were in the least frame of mind to venture out for such a deed. It is more than
likely and probable that the disciples were fearful that they themselves would
be the next ones to be apprehended and executed. Here’s how the Gospel writer
John puts it,
Then the same day at evening,
being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples
were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and
saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (John 20.19)
For the
benefit of those who might wish to know how the verse reads in J.B. Phillips’
translation, which hopefully, the author would have consulted –
In the evening of that first
day of the week, the disciples had met together with the doors locked for fear
of the Jews. Jesus came and stood right in the middle of them and said, “Peace
be with you!”
It is clear
that the disciples did not frighten the Roman guards stationed at the tomb of
Jesus. No. The only reason the guards fled, and yes, they did flee in
terror, was because of what the NT revels. Here are the words of Matthew,
In the end of the Sabbath, as
it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone
from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his
raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as
dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I
know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen,
as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell
his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you
into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.”– (Matthew 28. 1-7)
Again, for the
benefit of those wishing to know how J B Phillips puts it,
When the Sabbath was over,
just as the first day of the week was dawning Mary from Magdala and the other
Mary went to look at the tomb. At that moment there was a great earthquake, for
an angel of the Lord came down from Heaven, went forward and rolled back the stone
and took his seat upon it. His appearance was dazzling like lightning and his
clothes were white as snow. The guards shook with terror at the sight of him
and collapsed like dead men. But the angel spoke to the women, “Do not be
afraid. I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not
here—he is risen, just as he said he would. Come and look at the place where he
was lying. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the
dead. And, listen, he goes before you into Galilee! You will see him there! Now
I have told you my message.”
Clearly, it
was the appearance of the Angel from God, which appearance was frightening
indeed, that the Roman guards fled from the tomb. Notice too that it was the
Angel who rolled away the large stone that covered the entrance of the tomb.
Now that the Roman
guards had abandoned their station, they were in danger of the death penalty, because
they had failed to ‘guard’ the tomb. So what does the NT tell us as to what
became of the guards? Matthew tells us,
Now when they (the women who
had come to the tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ) were going, behold, some of the
watch (the Roman Guards) came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests
all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders,
and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye,
His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this
come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took
the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported
among the Jews until this day – (Matthew 28. 11-15)
J B Phillips
reads,
And while they were on their
way, some of the sentries went into the city and reported to the chief priests
everything that had happened. They got together with the elders, and after
consultation gave the soldiers a considerable sum of money and told them, “Your
story must be that his disciples came after dark, and stole him away while you
were asleep. If by any chance this reaches the governor’s ears, we will put it
right with him and see that you do not suffer for it.” So they took the money
and obeyed their instructions. The story was spread and is current among the
Jews to this day.
Clearly, the
Roman guards knew what awaited them since they had fled the scene of their
duty. However, the Jewish authorities appeased them and, having bribed the
Roman Governor, made them secure – i.e. they ensured their safety.
Now to return
to the author’s words – notice again not only his choice of words, but the
order in which he states the facts. The author says,
The
guard fled, the stone was moved, and the body disappeared. How this occurred,
the authorities simply did not adequately explain.
The author
obviously wants, or at least seems, to give the impression that it was only
after the guards had fled the scene that the stone was moved. Besides, it would
be more to the point to say that the stone was not merely moved, but rolled
away (again, it could be argued that to be moved is technically correct as it
was rolled away. However, the author’s choice of words again betrays his own
impressions and ideas, at least those which he desires to convey as historical).
The author then goes on to tell us that it was only after the guards had fled, and
the stone then moved (rolled away) that the body disappeared. Disappeared?
Is he not implying that the dead body was all along still inside the tomb up
until the time the Guards fled, and after the stone was moved? Obviously,
according to the author the body was still in the tomb before the stone was
moved. This is a most serious error.
The NT makes
it clear that the Angel did not roll away the stone to allow the disciples (the
women) to take away the body of the Lord. Nor did the Angel have to roll away
the stone to let the Lord Jesus out of the tomb. No. The Lord Jesus Christ had
bodily been resurrected even before the Angel could roll away the large stone.
The Angel rolled away the large stone to let the women who had come to the tomb
understand that the Lord had risen indeed. As is clear from the NT quotation
above, the Angel rolled the large stone away because the women would not have
been able by themselves to do. It is
also clear from the NT that the women had concerns about rolling away the large
stone. Another Gospel writer Mark informs us that when the women were on their
way to the tomb they did contemplate this issue –
they said among themselves,
Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? (Mark 16.3)
Back to the author’s
words; he further writes,
How
this occurred, the authorities simply did not adequately explain. Clearly, they
said, his followers must have bribed the guard, somehow rolled away the great
stone and stolen the corpse. The obvious solution – to produce the man’s body
and have done with this nonsense – failed. The fact is, search though they
certainly did, they couldn’t find it.
The
authorities just referred to actually did not at all explain the how of
these events, particularly the mystery (as they would consider it) of the
missing body of the crucified man. Nevertheless, the author wishes to give the impression
that they did explain; albeit an insufficient explanation. Again, from where
does the author get this piece of evidence? Surely, here he is voicing his own opinion
that they did do so. But let’s grant this.
However, the
author is clearly in error when he says that the authorities themselves
reported that the disciples bribed the guards. Moreover, the author asserts,
without any reliable evidence, that they (the Jewish authorities) ‘searched’
for the body of the Lord Jesus. It is certain and clear that they did no such
thing. And why would they search for the body, when all along they would have
known the truth – the truth as was reported by the Roman guards themselves!
It is absurd
on the part of the author to write any of these things. However, I’m sure he is
forced to use his imagination as he obviously does not accept the NT record as
accurate. And no wonder then, he has to put forward his own ideas and
conjectures on how these events would have transpired.
… to be continued, the Lord willing