PART II

INTRODUCTION, MATERIAL AND METHODS

The subtitle of this essay may raise eyebrows because one does not ordinarily think in these terms when seeing a non-scientific paper. But scientists have to follow rules when they want to get their data published. First is the Introduction which consists of a selective review of the literature and the reason why the investigation was undertaken. This is followed by the Material and Methods section which provides information on how the presented Results were achieved. Thereafter comes a section called Discussion where the author puts the new information in relationship to what had previously been known and the literature references which have been used. Inasmuch as I have published numerous papers in the scientific literature in this manner it has become second nature and I have approached the “Jesus Conundrum” in a similar manner. In the previous installment I have already discussed to some extent why the book on Jesus was written. These comments will be amplified here as well as the basis on which the opinions, which will be presented next month in the Results and Discussion essay, were arrived at. This division is important because it justifies the subtitle of the book, “Searching for Truth beyond Dogma.” The latter was the hallmark of the endeavor because, especially in our day and age, truth is hard to find even in daily life.

The problem of truth, which is fundamental for an orderly society, has in part already been covered in previous essays on this site (What is Truth? September 2001; Perceptions of Reality, August 2004; Faith and Science, July 2009; Knowledge and Faith, August 2009) but for the present it is necessary to point out that the Jesus book is not about “absolute truth.”  The latter is not available to human beings and the emphasis on truth is therefore in regard to human relationships. What we regard as truth is personal and dictated by the individual’s life experiences. Mine were profoundly shaped by the Nazi era where the truth as proclaimed by the government deviated fundamentally from what the Catholic religion held and also from that which ruled family life. These were tensions the adolescent had to come to terms with and their reasonably successful solution reflected itself in the subsequent course of life and eventually the book under discussion.

It tends not to be fully realized that the so-called “Abrahamic religions,” namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are not merely religions, namely private belief systems, but have a political dimension which impacts on everybody regardless of the faith, including agnosticism, a given person may hold. The current conflict with Muslim countries is, also part and parcel of the political domain enshrined in the Bible. In the Jesus book I limit myself to Judaism and Christianity and explore their similarities and differences with their impact on 21^st century America. 

In regard to Judaism there exists a fundamental difference from Christianity, which is not fully appreciated but has profound political implications. Moses did not merely intend to provide a rule book for ethical living. The goal was to create an enduring nation out of the Hebrews and the “mixed multitude” that had followed the tribes out of Egypt. As such, the Mosaic Law, and Judaism which evolved from it, was a political action program. Jesus, who lived in a different era, not only under Mosaic Law but also Roman occupation, which operated on a different value system, was not interested in nationhood but only in doing the will of God as he saw it. By following his truth, regardless of consequences, he became a symbol for the Kingdom of God - Life of the Spirit. 

In this way he had a profound impact on all aspects of our culture. So-called Western civilization, including its art and philosophy, is unthinkable without Christianity and Jesus at its center. Even historical time is still mainly reckoned as B.C., before Christ, and A.D., Anno Domini, although these labels are now spurned in scientific circles. In order not to offend other belief systems one has to use the terms B.C.E., before current era, and C.E., current era, if one wants to publish a scientific historical paper. If one uses the traditional terms the paper is likely to be rejected by its editors. This development is recent but another example that Christianity, and thereby Jesus, is gradually but steadily removed from public discourse and confined to the strictly personal religious sphere. But even in that realm traditional churches are losing ground and regular attendance is dwindling.

A cultural shift has taken place. It started in Europe with the so-called enlightenment of the 18^th century and has steadily gained traction ever since. The “miracles” of science and technology all of us have witnessed are the major reason why the “educated” members of society began to look askance at whatever cannot be explained by reason. Inasmuch as genuine religious experiences are not part of the sensory systems upon which we commonly operate, people who still believe in them tend to be regarded as “out of touch with reality.” Depending upon the vigor with which persons defend this obsolete faith they tend to be pitied, ignored, or regarded as delusional.

The first crack in the unbridled optimism in regard to the exclusive role of “scientific reality” in regard to human behavior appeared in the European mind with the First World War. Here was an unmitigated disaster which defied rational explanations and showed how science and technology are not merely servants of mankind but can be used for its destruction. Nevertheless, this lesson did not sink in immediately. On the contrary, scientific materialism became the hallmark of the first half of the twentieth century in Europe. Its political expression was Communism and as a reaction to it Fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany. All these systems were authoritarian and shared the belief that all problems can be solved by science and technology. But the conduct towards their citizens who did not accept the officially proclaimed truth differed in the case of Italy.

While Mussolini’s system was originally relatively benign in this respect, the other two were vicious. The choice of the “enemy of the State” was based on local circumstances. In the Soviet Union it was the Kulak and the Bourgeois; in Nazi Germany the Jew and the Communist. I have deliberately capitalized the labels because this is how they were used at the time. Individual differences and thereby individual belief systems made no difference; the person was lumped into a given class and as member of that class disposed of according to the whim of the State. The slogan in Nazi Germany, the system I am personally most familiar with, was “Der Einzelne ist nichts, das Volk ist alles.”  The individual is nothing the people (State, Nation) is everything. For the sake of the “people,” or rather the State, any and all means were legal once they had become official policy.

There is now an interesting and underappreciated fact of history that has become apparent in the demise of these two belief systems in regard to the choice of the enemy. Communism could be tolerated in the West, until the Cold War, because a slaughter of “Kulaks” and of “Bourgeois” was regarded as an internal problem and these people had no international allies. But for the Nazis the situation was different. Persecution of Jews, from which Mussolini had abstained prior to falling under Hitler’s influence, was intolerable in the eyes of the world. The Jewish Diaspora could not accept it and had the means to enforce its views. Theoretically it should make no difference who the person is against whom a crime is committed and the killing of millions of people in the Soviet Union prior to WWII should have aroused at least as much animosity in the world as the persecution of Jews by Hitler. Prior to WWII these consisted mainly of depriving Jews of their livelihood, making their lives miserable by chicaneries, and thereby encouraging emigration. Outright mass murder was the result of the war.

In my previous books War & Mayhem, as well as The Moses Legacy, I have shown that Hitler’s belief system was not merely the opposite of Christianity, which earned him the title of Antichrist, but even more so the outgrowth of Old Testament thinking. The “chosen people” had, in Hitler’s opinion, seriously trespassed against the needs of the German nation and, at least within Germany, they had to be brought to heel. He thoroughly underestimated, however, the history of the Jewish people who, although they also valued their nationhood (albeit in exile at that time) above all else, would not tolerate that a Jew anywhere in the world was subjected to discrimination simply for being a Jew. For the Jewish leadership this was a matter of survival and the world’s resources had to be mobilized to get rid of this danger. When Hitler spoke of Weltjudentum, world Jewry, and its power, he was correct in a sense, but he was mistaken in thinking that he had the means to overcome it.

Inasmuch as WWII, its causes and goals, tend to be misrepresented in the American media, a small excursion into what for me was Zeitgeschichte (personally experienced history) is necessary at this point. Without coming to grips with how WWII really started we cannot hope to avoid WWIII. A search for truth beyond dogma inevitably also involves the political sphere because what was a propaganda slogan for a specific purpose can subsequently become dogma for all time. As far as Hitler is concerned he had thoroughly deluded himself by not reading “the sign of the times” (Matthew 16:1-3). He still thought as a pre World War I European who had not realized that America was already in ascendance and in the process of relieving the British Empire of its burden. The idea that he could confine his war against the Soviet Union, which was the foremost goal, and that the Brits would be happy if he helped them with his Wehrmacht to hold up their tottering empire, was thoroughly anachronistic. As the Spanish-American war and WWI had shown, America’s frontiers had moved not only to East Asia but also to Europe. Once Britain had entered Hitler’s war the outcome was pre-ordained because by hook and by crook America had to be dragged into it.

On the other hand for the average American citizen to become a willing participant, who would sacrifice his life, the reason for the war had to be redefined. The Nazis were now portrayed as the sole menace to civilization and since they officially fought against “atheistic Jewish bolshevism” in order “to save Western civilization,” a new rallying cry had to be found. I have used quotes in the previous sentence because this is how Hitler’s war was sold to us at that time.  Americans could not be expected to enter the war in the defense of British and Jewish interests, as well as those of industrialists who would profit from it and Charles Lindbergh’s speech in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941, which is available on the Internet at http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp, provides a picture how the war was portrayed here at that time. Similar forces are operative at present and for this reason the speech will be discussed in more detail in another essay.  Lindbergh was promptly ostracized for speaking truth to power, smeared as an anti-Semite, and the rush to war continued.

Since there was a considerable popular groundswell of anti-Semitism in the America of the 1930s, which actually lasted to some extent until at least the 1950s (Jews could not move to Grosse Pointe when we bought our house there in 1957), no one would have been willing to sacrifice life, limb or property for the sake of European Jews. A high ethical reason had, therefore, to be found. Inasmuch as the words Christian and Christianity had become tinged with anti-Semitism, as a result of Father Coughlin’s widely listened to speeches, a compromise solution was reached. Defense of “the Judeo- Christian heritage” now became the slogan of the day. Since evangelical Protestants always had somewhat of a preference for the Old Testament over the New, the term was eminently successful. It has not only survived the war but has replaced the word Christianity in public and especially in political life. It is impossible to win an election for major public office unless one professes allegiance to this Judeo-Christian tradition (heritage) rather than Christianity and Jesus. Yet, for anyone who has given thought to these matters it is obvious that the term “Judeo-Christian” is merely a political expedient, a popular half-truth, and thereby dangerous.

Inasmuch as we live in dangerous times where truth is again manipulated to serve political purposes, I felt the need to explore the reasons for it and the book resulted from these endeavors. As a physician I concentrated on the human aspects of Jesus’ life leaving “Christology” to theologians. But in the effort to discern how Jesus might have felt and why he did what he did, we are limited to the narrations of the evangelists and they don’t agree on some key aspects. Nevertheless, a wise Rabbi once declared, “it doesn’t matter what really happened, what matters is what people believe has happened.” This is correct and a limitation all of us have to accept. For this reason we can work scientifically with the gospels only in an “as if” manner. This means that we can study what is written, not necessarily as absolute historical truth, which does not exist even in secular literature, but as a version of events that is regarded as such.

When one works with the gospels in a systematic manner the first thing one has to realize is that we are dealing with translations of translations. We do not have Jesus’ original words because no Aramaic text has ever been discovered. The gospels were written in Greek and translated during the fourth century A.D. by St. Jerome into Latin as the Vulgata, which means the language of the common people. The subsequent translations into the various languages of the world, and their revisions, are based either on the Latin or Greek text. Since Greek was the original language the gospels appeared in, one might be tempted in one’s quest for authenticity to disregard the translations altogether and simply concentrate on the Greek version. Unfortunately, the original Greek versions of the gospels no longer exist. They have been revised several times and the earliest printed version, as opposed to handwritten, dates to 1514. The Greek text that is currently commercially available, and which was used for the book, represents a 1901 revision.

While this makes a scientist shudder, the situation is even worse for the Old Testament. The Hebrew collection of scrolls, which eventually became our Bible, emerged over a period of centuries. They contained no vowels or punctuation and are read from right to left. Bible scholars who want to glean “the truth” from early Hebrew documents, to the extent they exist, as for instance in the Dead Sea scrolls, are faced not only with a formidable but a basically unsolvable task. A given sequence of consonants can be filled in with vowels of one’s choice, and sentence endings may have to be artificially constructed. For the Dead Sea Scrolls the problem is compounded by the fact that the scholars have to work, to some extent, with scraps of material which have to be pasted together in some type of logical sequence. This process is, of course, also open to bias.

In addition there is a difference between the spoken and written word which is called prosody. A little Jewish joke might illustrate this better than erudite explanations. Moshe and Shlomo had an argument during which Moshe called Shlomo a scoundrel. Shlomo was upset and took Moshe before the judge. The judge said to Moshe, “Tell Shlomo that he is not a scoundrel.” Whereupon Moshe said, “Shlomo is not a scoundrel?” The judge reproved Moshe saying that this was not what was meant, whereupon Moshe replied, “Your honor, you can give me the words but I make the melody!”  Yes indeed; it is the melody which counts and we try to convey it in written language by commas, exclamation marks, question marks, periods and so on. When these are missing, as they were up to the early centuries of our time, all bets are off as to the intended original meaning. This is why one can dispute interminably what a given word or sentence in a Hebrew document might have meant originally.

All of this is compounded by the fact that language is not static but changes over decades let alone centuries or millennia. No one would have expected in the 1950s, for instance, that the simple word “gay” would refer to homosexual people. It seems quite possible that in another fifty years that this is all it will mean and that the Christmas Carol, “Don we now our gay apparel” will be viewed as an invitation to cross dressing. Who knows? Furthermore, words have more than one meaning in different languages and the translator has to choose the one that fits best into the concept he wants to convey. There is inevitable bias inherent in this process and it is exceedingly interesting to not only compare the various gospels, but also the different translations within the same language. If this were not enough, each translator lives in a given time period with the culture of its day and cultural bias is, therefore, practically unavoidable. We should also never forget that words are not things per se but symbols which stand for thoughts, feelings or visions. In this way they are always inadequate, especially when it comes to the expression of spiritual topics.

In order to reach an understanding of what Jesus might have said and done I used as basic documents the New Greek - English Interlinear New Testament and for the Old Testament mainly the Septuagint which is the Greek translation from Hebrew. The latter is actually the oldest complete Bible, in the form we know the book today. It was also the main text the gospel writers used. For comparison purposes other Bibles were also consulted as well as the Socino Chumash for the Pentateuch (first five books of Moses) and for some of the prophetic writings. Using the Greek text had the advantage that a given word could be explored for its various meanings which opened new understanding of some difficult concepts. Since I had only learned Latin, English and French in High School the Greek language was indeed Greek to me but the problem was overcome with the mentioned text and the help of Zodiathes’ The Complete Word Study Dictionary, which cannot be recommended strongly enough for serious Bible study.

Although I proceeded initially in the usual sequence of the gospels, as laid out in the New Testament, it soon became apparent that the material would not only become unmanageable but also fail to reach the desired end. I, therefore, changed the sequence by presenting the gospel of Mark first and then merely discussed the discrepancies between Mark’s gospel and those of Matthew and Luke which form what is called the synoptic gospels because they show internal coherence. Inasmuch as Luke provided not only the life of Jesus but also The Acts of the Apostles, his sequence was retained. The Acts can, however, not be understood unless one is familiar with the major Pauline Epistles. They were, therefore, presented after The Acts. These in turn led into St. John’s gospel which is a theological treatise, rather than a biography of Jesus, and subsequently the Revelation of St. John the Divine, better known as the Apocalypse. These two chapters are the most challenging to the intellect and can readily be misunderstood. The subsequent chapter put the gospels into their historic context and the final one addressed Pilate’s immortal question: What is truth? followed by Conclusions and Bibliography.

As a scientist I proceeded in the same manner as for my medical investigations. I was familiar with the conventional textbook wisdom but ever so often a question arose on some specific aspect where the textbook and clinical experience did not quite agree. I then performed the appropriate experiment and reached my own conclusions. Only after I had obtained my results and was ready to prepare the data for publication did I perform a thorough literature search in order to see what others had reported. This method while limiting bias also led to major disappointments, because ever so often I found out that my efforts had merely duplicated the findings of others. But apart from hurt pride for not having been the first one to make this particular observation, I could give the previous authors credit. In addition, when one can independently confirm somebody else’s results this provides them with even greater validity.

The literature on Jesus is, however, so vast that nobody can read it in one’s lifetime. A choice had to be made and in my search for purity I, therefore, concentrated mainly on authors from past decades and centuries. There was no slight intended because as explained in the book, the truth has to stand the test of time. This is contrary to the current Zeitgeist where what is new is automatically regarded as being better and this is why we are confronted with so much contradictory information even in regard to scientific matters. The hallmark of the truth, especially in matters of the spirit is that it keeps! What was true yesterday, years, decades, centuries and millennia ago should still be true today! Furthermore, what is true for one civilization needs to be true for humankind at large because truth does not know national borders.

There is a spirit of truth which has been known to mankind throughout history. Different cultures have given it different names, but in Christian lands it is called the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost. Personally I do not much care for the term Holy Ghost because the word ghost pertains mainly to apparitions of the dead while Spirit animates the living. Among the acknowledgments in the book I, therefore, also listed the Holy Spirit upon whose guidance I had relied throughout my life and during the writing of this book. Since the Holy Spirit is the center piece I was looking for an appropriate symbol that could be used for the front cover of the book. By putting our heads together as a family we came up with the idea of a dove emerging from the sun and carrying in her beak the feather of Maat (Ancient Egyptian symbol for truth and justice; discussed in Our Need for Maat, August 2007) to earth. To put these thoughts into a picture I entrusted the task to Mr. Zack Johnson who is also my webmaster. When I first saw the finished product I experienced a little shock of dismay because I had visualized a pure golden sun rather than the way it was depicted and reproduced below.

After I had looked at it for a little while I became aware that, unintentionally, the picture contained not only greater symbolism than I had expected but also corresponded better to the truth. For the sun and the earth actual photographs from outer space were used and it just so happened that the dove heads for the Middle East, the birthplace of our civilization. Egypt, the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf are clearly visible as terra firma at the upper end of the globe. In regard to the appearance of the sun, which could also be regarded as the cosmic egg from which all else emerged, I had another surprise when for some unfathomable reason my eye was drawn one day to Swedenborg’s  Heaven and Hell which had been sitting for decades on one of my library shelves. I had never read the book from cover to cover, only scanned certain portions and had retained only their essence. I shall deal with Swedenborg in more detail at another time but for now I was flabbergasted to read, as part of a random selection, how the angels see God according to Swedenborg’s conversations with them. In the chapter on “Change of State of the Angels in Heaven,” section 159, he wrote:

I have been shown how the Lord, as a Sun, appears to the angels of the celestial kingdom in their first state, how in their second, and how in their third state.  The Lord as a Sun was at first seen, golden red and glittering with a splendour that cannot be described. . . .  Afterwards there appeared a great dark belt around the Sun and by this its first glow and brilliancy which gave it such splendour began to be dulled. It was said that such is the appearance to them in their second state.

For the purely materialistically oriented mind it is obviously a coincidence that Zack picked from all the available NASA earth photographs this particular one as well as one of the sun which is the most appropriate for the context. Furthermore, that I not only looked at the Swedenborg book, after several decades, but chanced upon this particular paragraph from its more than 500 pages, will likewise be regarded as coincidental. But events like these have happened on other occasions and this is part of the reason why I am giving the Holy Spirit His due in the Acknowledgments of the Jesus book. The cover picture was, however, designed only after the text had been submitted to the publisher and the above mentioned details are not included in the book.

As mentioned, the contents of the book are concerned with the search for truth beyond dogma and, therefore, not limited to a specific belief system. It required an investigation of how other cultures in previous centuries had dealt with the problem of living in relative peace with oneself and one’s neighbors. This is the key aspect and unless we solve this problem we cannot hope to achieve material, let alone spiritual, well-being. Material-scientific progress alone cannot achieve this goal. Europe has learned from the tragedies of the first half of the 20^th century, is sick of war, and is again beginning to add a more humanistic component to continued scientific progress. Yet, the influential circles which govern America’s fortunes are still mired in the thought patterns of optimistic, materialistic 19^th and early 20^th century Europe. In the November 23 issue of Newsweek the well known Christopher Hitchens, who is a militant atheist, wrote: “The United States has to stand or fall by being the preeminent nation of science, modernity, technology, and higher education.” Hitler could have said the same thing for Germany, Lenin and Stalin for the Soviet Union, and the Chinese communists for their country. Not only is “preeminence” the key word, which also implies domination rather than cooperation, so is the absence of a spiritual component: truth and justice for all. In the Jesus book I have tried to show how a synthesis of matter and spirit can be achieved and why this is necessary for the further evolution, if not survival, of the human race.

I had hoped that the book would be available for Christmas but numerous delays by the publisher made this impossible. It is now slated to appear in print sometime in January.