PART III

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

            In the previous installments I discussed why I felt compelled to write this book and how I proceeded in a somewhat scientific manner to analyze the gospel material about Jesus and his time. It has also been pointed out that the book, although dealing with Jesus as a person, does not claim to have discovered the “historical” Jesus. Furthermore, as a physician and neuroscientist I have also not ventured into what can be called Christology because that is an area that belongs to theologians and philosophers. But since there is near universal agreement that a human being called Jesus of Nazareth existed in Roman occupied Palestine and was crucified there, the physician has a right to be interested in this person and to try to find out why he did what he is reported to have done. This was not only of personal but also professional interest. Jesus has been labeled by some of my psychiatric colleagues as “a paranoid schizophrenic” and St. Paul as an “epileptic.” Since these illnesses and their differential diagnosis clearly fall into my medical specialty it should not be surprising that I wanted to examine the basis for these claims.

            As has also been mentioned previously the only information anyone, who wants to write about Jesus, has available are the four gospels. Regardless of the qualifications a given person can bring to the study of Jesus these are the only basic documents extant at this time and it is upon those that personal opinions are rendered. Furthermore, the gospels were originally written in Greek and the vast majority of people around the world who profess to be Christians no longer understand that language. We are, therefore, when we talk about Jesus’ words and actions, dealing not only with translations into the various languages of the world but also with an ever increasing number of versions of the New Testament (NT) even in the English language. From these one can pick and choose the one which best suits one’s needs and interests. This fundamental fact must be clearly recognized and so must be the fact that the Greek language was considerably more expressive in philosophical matters than contemporary English. We are doing the spirit of the gospel writers a profound disservice if we don’t attempt to look at the meaning of what they have tried to convey and simply stay with a few basic English words such as: love, grace and charity.

            Although I did not have the benefit of having learned Greek in High School, I tried to make up for this deficiency by using a Greek-English transliteration of the NT and by examining, in dictionaries, the multiple meanings of certain words. This provided personal insights which tend to go beyond what one commonly reads in modern literature. The emphasis is on “personal” and the book makes no claim to have discovered universal truth to which everyone must subscribe unless eternal damnation were to result. This is the realm of religious dogmas and the difference between truth and dogma is not always appreciated. The Greek word for truth in the NT is aletheia and refers to: truth, veracity, uprightness, honesty and reality in contrast to: an appearance or a lie. Aletheia was differentiated from doxa which referred to: opinion, notion; expectation; false opinion, delusion, fancy; decree, project; judgment; reputation, report, estimation, honor; glory, splendor. In the NT the word is used, especially in regard to God, in the last two meanings. While dogma also carried the meaning of opinion, it was strengthened by: decree; resolution; doctrine.

            Unless one clearly differentiates these terms and merely supplants them with the one word “truth” no agreement will become possible. It is this failure to differentiate aletheia from doxa which leads to the current frequently expressed notion: there is no truth; all is opinion to which cynics may add that all opinions are equally unreliable. This type of thinking allows lies to flourish and is the root of many of our problems. It is true that most of our ideas are doxa and some of them have been elevated to dogma in the religious as well as political sphere, but this does not mean that aletheia, in the sense of honesty, does not exist. Although aletheia is to some extent also personal and flavored by the life experiences of the individual, it can be checked for veracity by others who are willing to do so. 

            In the book I have kept the difference between these three terms in mind. There is no dogma to which any reader is supposed to subscribe, there is a great deal of doxa, which is necessitated by the limitation of the topic’s sources, but also aletheia in the sense of remaining honest in the presentation of the data. This is the aspect which may give some readers the most trouble because honesty, although being paid lip service to, is not desired by our society. We are told by well meaning friends “but you can’t say that, you’ll offend the other person.” This is the point where we tend to give in, and either shade our truth or hold our tongue altogether. “Thus makes conscience cowards of us all” said Shakespeare, and Goethe had Faust say, when paraphrased: the few who have had the temerity to proclaim what they really knew have always been crucified or burned at the stake. Stating the unadulterated truth is dangerous to one’s professional life, and occasionally even in the family circle. In addition, personal experience has taught me that the truth is also that which hurts the most to admit!  This is documented with examples in the book and is also the reason why the book is not likely to become a bestseller. Nevertheless, it puts the book in good company and I have quoted Seneca (4 B.C-65 A.D.) who stated, “What I say will benefit you even if you don’t like it. Words that are not soothing must sometimes reach you . . .”

            In the previous installment I mentioned the order in which I proceeded in my quest for understanding Jesus and that I had started out with the gospel of Mark rather than, as in the NT, with Matthew. It had become apparent that the four evangelists had come from different backgrounds and wrote for different audiences. Our current picture of Jesus is, therefore, an amalgam of different viewpoints and as such in part contradictory. Even when one leaves the gospel of John aside for the moment, the writers of the three synoptic gospels provide, in part, conflicting information which can only be explained by their underlying motive and that the documents had undergone an editorial process in ancient times. It is also clear that neither Mark nor Matthew or Luke actually wrote the final documents which now bear their names and the Church has made this apparent by referring to the specific gospel as “according to” rather than “by,” which leaves authorship open.

            Since the gospel of Mark is the most concise, largely avoids polemic and provides a relatively coherent narration I have placed it first in the book. It was written for a gentile audience and presents a Jesus whom I could understand and sympathize with. Even some of the “miracles” can potentially have a rational explanation as was shown in that chapter.  Mark also presents the tragedy of human endeavors. The first words attributed to Jesus in Mk 1:15 were, “The time has been fulfilled; the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news.” The last ones, uttered on the cross were, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” A conviction, his personal aletheia, of having been chosen to save the Jewish people, if not humanity, from its errors had given way to his new reality that he had failed and could not fathom the will of God. It was no longer Abba, the Father, whom he addressed in his agony but that power of the universe, Eloi, which we can give names to, but which defies human understanding. In this way the gospel of Mark mirrors the fate of the human race. Imbued with good will and full of hope we try to put our stamp on the world but when we do so in disregard of the “Prince of this World” we are bound to come to grief. But, as explained in the book, words are not what we die with. We are going to see pictures which are likely to represent our deepest held beliefs and under those circumstances Jesus may well have seen himself received by the loving arms of his Father.

            Since it is obviously impossible, and not even desirable, to condense the entire book into a few pages here, I will provide only some snippets which deal with the explanation of words and conclusions derived therefrom. For instance what does “repent” really mean? The Greek word was metanoeite and conveys the concept of “to rethink,” to consider what and how one has thought up to that point and to change these thoughts for the sake of current reality. In the Jesus context it would mean: don’t concern yourself any longer with thoughts of material prosperity, regardless of the means to gain it, or of rebellions against the political system; they are not helpful. The kingdom of God – the reign of aletheia and freedom of spirit which only God can provide – is coming. This would be the timeless message of the euaggellon, evangelium, good news. In Jesus time there was the additional element of wide-spread apocalyptic thought, which literally expected a fiery end of this world at any moment.

            Metanoia is not limited to the concept of sin but is useful to keep in mind for everyday life.  Let us reflect on our conduct and see where and what type of improvement is needed. This applies also to the Greek word for sin, which is hamartía.  Sin is an offense against God and since God does not exist for atheists they can, therefore, not sin. Nevertheless, they can still fall victim to hamartía. This paradox is resolved when one realizes that the term refers primarily to: miss the mark, err, or fail. The word has even found its way into neurology where we find it as hamartoma, which refers to a group of nerve cells which have missed its destination in the cerebral cortex, formed a tumor in places where they don’t belong and thereby create illness. I must admit that, although I knew of hamartomas, I did not know the derivation of the term before I embarked on the study of Jesus and thereby reaped an unexpected professional bonus. Thus, missing the mark is the key aspect we should hold in front of our eyes at all times. What is the goal we try to hit with our arrow and how good is our aim? Those are the questions each one of us ought to reflect on and they are independent of all the variables, such as: race, gender, national origin, and religion with which we separate ourselves from each other.

            As mentioned above Mark’s gospel is concise. There is no genealogy, history of supernatural birth, and there is not a single one of the “woes” which we find in Matthew and Luke. There is also no mention of the Church which Jesus will found on his rock – Peter. When Jesus asked his disciples: who do you say I am? Peter blurted out: “You are the Messiah.” In Mark’s gospel (8:29) Jesus merely told them not to mention this to anyone, while Matthew (16:16) put the well known Church founding verses 16:17-19 into Jesus’ mouth. As explained in the book, some of the words and parables attributed to Jesus reflected not so much Jesus’ core belief but the needs of the growing Church which had to differentiate itself from Judaism as well as the various splinter groups of emerging Christianity. Mark also tells us nothing about Jesus’ biologic father and the only Joseph who appears in the gospel is Joseph of Arimathea who provided the tomb and assisted in the burial. The fact that Jesus is referred to in Mark’s gospel as “the son of Mary” (6:3) is highly unusual in biblical literature and I have discussed ancient as well as recent thoughts about Jesus’ physical, as distinct from spiritual, paternity in the book.

            Finally, Mark’s original narration of the resurrection events ended with the women who had come to anoint the body but having found instead “a young man dressed in a white robe” who told them that Jesus “had been raised” and that they should tell Peter and the disciples that “they will see him in Galilee.” Whereupon the “they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid [16:5-8].” Since whatever Mark had written thereafter, was no longer available to the Church fathers and they could not end the book with frightened women running away, they compromised and provided a short as well as a long ending, which is now official. The short one was added to verse 8 while the long one consists of verses 9-19. Both versions are, even by the Catholic Church, regarded as inauthentic. But Jesus’ supposed prophecy in regard to his followers’ speaking in tongues, handling poisonous snakes and drinking toxic juice has become folklore and is enacted in some religious “Christian” communities to this day.

             The gospel of Matthew was written by a Jewish convert for his Jewish brethren. It relates many of the same events as Mark did but elaborates on them and although insisting on virgin birth, traced Jesus’ paternity from Abraham through David to Joseph. It also contains the wise men from the East, Herod’s massacre of the innocents, the flight to Egypt and eventual return to Galilee and Nazareth, which according to Matthew had not been Joseph’s original home. The book explains why these elaborations were necessary from a Jewish point of view. The difference between Mark and Matthew also becomes palpable in the way Jesus’ attitude to the oral Law was depicted. Mark’s Jesus clearly had no use for the 613 rules and regulations the Pharisees had imposed upon the people and he even reduced the written Law to “love God and thy neighbor.” This presented a conflict for the observant writer of Matthew who had Jesus say that, “. . . whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven . . .  (5:17-21). These verses are an insert in the Beatitudes and conflict with Mark’s Jesus who dined with sinners (violating the dietary rules and ritual cleanliness of dishes) and worst of all told the Jewish authorities that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way round (Mk 2:27). Since Matthew also relates the Sabbath healing and other aspects of oral Law violations by Jesus it seems apparent that an editor had been at work on the original document which led to these contradictions. Whether or not the famous woes to the Pharisees were indeed proclaimed by Jesus can no longer be ascertained but they have their counterpart in the Old Testament (OT) book of Enoch where they are addressed to sinners in general rather than Pharisees in specific.

            Luke’s gospel largely agrees with Mark and Matthew but added the stable and shepherd story to the nativity scene and seems also to have been edited in ancient times. It was written for a gentile audience and it is assumed that the main author was Luke, a physician, who had accompanied St. Paul on some of his missionary journeys. There are some additional key differences from Matthew. The genealogy not only traces Jesus’ biologic paternity beyond Abraham through Adam to God but the names of the various fathers differ, except for Joseph and David. In addition the gospel contains the parable of the Good Samaritan which defines the concept of “neighbor;” Jesus’ healing the severed ear of the High Priest’s servant at Gethsemane, and the momentous “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing (23:34).”  It needs to be noted, however, that the latter statement was placed in square brackets in the Greek text indicating that the statement was a later insertion. Nevertheless, by the time the gospel was translated into Latin and all subsequent languages, these brackets have disappeared. Although Luke’s gospel, as it exists today, had undergone revisions in ancient times by merging different texts it makes important points for Christian living as the above mentioned forgiveness statement shows.

            Another deviation from Mark as well as Matthew occurs in regard to the Last Supper. Although the scene setting is largely identical, only Luke added the words “do this in remembrance of me.” These few words portray a thoroughly human Jesus who knows that he is going to die a cruel death, whose disciples may or may not be reliable in following his example of supreme self-sacrifice for the sake of God, but at least they should keep his memory alive. Isn’t this what we mainly want: to be remembered in a positive light? For accuracy’s sake, it should be mentioned that although the other synoptic gospels do not contain these words they do show up in St, Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians (11:24) and if Luke indeed accompanied Paul on some of his travels he might have heard them from him.

            By the time the gospel of John was written, the synoptic gospels were already available, but a need was perceived for a permanent transfiguration of the human being Jesus of Nazareth to the everlasting Christ, the “logos,” who had preexisted from eternity. The gospel only uses Jesus as a framework to make theological points and cannot be understood from a materialistic point of view. It is the only officially condoned “Gnostic” book of the NT and needs to be read from a spiritual and allegoric point of view. Unless one does so, one would have to conclude that Jesus was indeed suffering from megalomania. To reconstruct human biographical features of Jesus is well nigh impossible and was never the intention of the author. An understanding of this gospel requires not only information about Greek philosophy (logos and its various meanings) but also awareness of the power struggles within the nascent Church. These are hinted at, especially in Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles, but are clearly apparent in John who expressed a great deal of indignation about the Jews. Jews, as Jews, do not figure in the synoptic gospels except for the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. In John there are more than 50 references to them and usually in a negative manner.

            The reason for this change can probably be traced to the fact that Jews, by and large, had failed to recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah and not only refused to join the Church but the Jewish authorities were, for good reason, hostile to it because they perceived the obvious threat to their established religion. The followers of “The Way” as they were originally called, before the initially derogatory term Christians was bestowed on them, were regarded by Jews as a dangerous sect and John, or more correctly the various writers and editors of the gospel who came from the Jewish community, were deeply disappointed by this turn of affairs. This hostility is also clear in the Pauline epistles. On several occasions he only narrowly escaped from Jewish mobs during his missionary travels and eventually had to procure his Roman citizenship papers in order to avoid being killed in Jerusalem. For the story that he was beheaded in Rome in 65 A.D., there is no evidence; neither from the NT nor from Roman sources.

            As mentioned, the gospel of John also had several authors and this accounts for the numerous repetitions in the text. But the first chapter, which does form a somewhat cohesive whole, gives an indication of what John had intended to prove. In view of subsequent Church dogma it is of interest how the idea of Jesus as the only begotten Son of the Father had arisen and why the split between the Western and Eastern Church had occurred. The details are in the book but it may suffice to mention here that for the first instance the relative adverb hós which denotes: who, how, in what manner or way, as, so as, like as, which appears prior to monogenous was translated to “as of” in the King James Version (1:14). The Latin vulgate is, however, more accurate by translating hós with quasi, “as if,” which clearly denotes analogy rather than identity. One marvels what a difference the translation of one simple word and the exchange of an “i” for an “o” in the English language can make. But this is an example how dogmas come into being.

            Another example of dogma creation deals with an “i” in the Greek language. A dispute in regard to the extent of Jesus’ divinity had arisen in the early Church. There were two factions; one insisted the Jesus was of the same substance as God, homoousios, while the other insisted with equal vigor that this could not be the case and that he was of similar but not identical substance, homoiousios. The first group, monophysites, won the day by a democratic vote and those who had championed the similarity as opposed to identity were cast out as heretics. Democracy and Majority Rule have their virtues but provide no guarantee that aletheia will thereby triumph. 

            The first chapter of John has another interesting aspect. Verse 17 provides the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism. Translations differ slightly but the essence is: the Law was given through Moses but grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Truth, aletheia, has already been explained but “grace” is another difficult concept with several potential meanings. The intention of the author becomes clear when we look at the Greek word which has been translated as “grace.” The word is “charis” and stands for the joy of a recipient for an unexpected and undeserved gift. From “charis” charity was derived but this fails to include its essence – joy. Yet, it was joy which was the Good News, the euaggellon.

Years ago when I read some of Kazantzakis’ books for the first time, I was struck by the fact that the Cretans greeted each other on Easter Sunday with, “Rejoice, the Lord has risen;” while sailing aficionados who have read Patrick O’ Brian’s series about the exploits of Captain Aubrey and his friend Dr. Maturin will remember that they greeted each other with “give you joy.” This seemed to me at the time as quite incongruous because in our day and age we would not talk this way. Yet, O’Brien knew his Greek and that when people met, either in Crete or in ancient Palestine, they said “chairete,” Joy, be with you! This is also the word Jesus used when he greeted his disciples (e.g. Mt. 28:9). What do some of our English language NTs say? The King James translation uses “All Hail,” the Amplified Bible: “Hail (greeting); The New English Bible: “he gave them his greeting;” The New Greek-English interlinear Testament in the English text: “Greetings,” but chairete was transliterated as, “Hello.” This is a typical example of the paucity of our language because none of these terms convey the joy which one may feel when meeting someone who is dear to one. 

Another important example is the word “love,” which has an erotic-sexual as well as a wider connotation. In our day and age the sexual element predominates and this is in no small part due to the influence of Freud on our culture which will be discussed separately on another occasion. For now it suffices to say that he seemed to regard St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, in which he praised love above all else (I Cor. 13:1-13), also in the context of eros (Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse, chapter on Suggestion and Libido), rather than the words used in the Greek or Latin version of the NT. While we have only one word for love, the Greeks had three. These were: agape, phílos and eros. Eros dealt with sexual attraction, phílos with friendship and agape with: affectionate regard, goodwill and benevolence. It is the selfless love of parents towards their children and in the context of the NT the love of God for mankind and Jesus’ love for his disciples. It is essential that these concepts are kept separate but since this is somewhat difficult in the English language, or for that matter the German, confusion abounds.

Since agape (the “a” is pronounced as in “ah” and “pe” as in Peoria) is such an important and undervalued concept, but the essence of Jesus’ message, I shall try to explain it further. Erotic love, with or without sexual consummation, is always directed towards one other person or object (as in fetishism). The love object may change over time and is usually one individual although a ménage à trois may occur. Furthermore, as Freud has pointed out, there is also a degree of ambivalence (attraction and repulsion) involved, and love can readily change to hate. As such, erotic love is selfish and requires a partner for wish fulfillment. Agape on the other hand is omni-directional, not limited to a person or persons but extends to all of nature and may even be regarded as the glue which holds society together and connects it to the universe. Agape simply is; it gives and gives without expectation of any return. With other words it is utterly selfless. In this way it is closely linked to, but not necessarily identical with, charis which also gives without expectation of a return. But since it has the added joy which is experienced by the recipient as one of its essential elements it pertains mainly to human beings. One may also visualize the difference as agape being the underlying substrate, which expresses itself in action as charis. This can be experienced by the human being especially when the English word “agape” is used in the context of keeping one’s mind wide open to other ideas. Under those circumstances one would not automatically submit to deeply rooted prejudices but see the world in a new light.

In the conclusions of the Jesus book I stated that, “in the struggle for our minds and souls, Moses has won and Jesus has failed.” This sounds like a harsh indictment but reflects reality. As mentioned above, St. John stated that Moses brought the Law but Jesus aletheia and charis. I am deliberately using the Greek terms because the words lose their essence in English. As a society we put our faith in laws, which proliferate on a daily basis, and people attempt to cirumvent them whenever possible. Selfishness, or Freud’s “libido” pervades all aspects of life and Christian principles are proclaimed but not practiced. Even the so-called born-again Christians, foremost among them our immediate past President, George W Bush and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, lacked the essential ingredients of a Christian life with which I closed the Jesus book: Aletheia, Agape, Charis. A person who lives by these principles would never start a war and when a tragedy happens, such as on 9/11, would have provided a clearly defined non-violent rational response rather than used it as pretext for invading other countries.

The 9/11 response of our government was a typical example for Moses’ success over Jesus because fear and the desire for revenge against the evil-doers, which are clearly sanctioned in the OT, trumped “agapate your enemies” (Mt.5:44). The reason is obvious, hate and revenge are natural biologic passions while agape, even toward those who harm you, requires spiritual effort few can muster. Those are facts, aletheia, and unless we come to grips with them mankind will continue to stumble from one disaster to the next.

In order to overcome our ingrained passions the message of Jesus is clear. On the societal and political level the key sentence is found in Mark 8:15, “Watch out, guard against the leaven of the Pharisees and Herodians.” With other words, don’t fall for religious or political propaganda, but examine carefully what you are told. For personal conduct we need to take Matthew 7:5 to heart, “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” This admonition cannot be emphasized sufficiently and this why I shall paraphrase it: look at your soul, don’t hide it in the attic like Oscar Wilde’s picture of Dorian Gray! Examine your thoughts and conduct on a daily basis and then change what needs to be changed before you make others conform to your opinions. Only when one honestly confronts all one’s failings can spiritul progress be achieved and one knows when one is on the right track when one can live with the final reassurance: Fear not; aletheia will set you free!

In contrast to the fear of the Law, which comes natural, the above mentioned Christian precepts, which by the way were also taught by the Buddha, require a great deal of effort and tend to be shunned. Yet, our society can no longer afford to do so and metanoia in the sense of reassessing who and what we are is urgently needed.

Finally we can safely leave the question of physical resurrection and the physical return of Jesus to this planet to the theologians. If and when he were to return we might not even recognize him because as some of the gospels tell us he appeared after resurrection in “another form.” In Luke we read that two disciples on the way to Emmaus regarded him as a stranger, and in the gospel of John even Mary Magdalene thought him to be the gardner. In the last chapter of that gospel the disciples did not recognize him either when he showed himself to them on the shore of the lake in Galilee. The important message that is contained in these few verses, namely to see Jesus in the stranger, is widely disregarded. Thus, the task for those of us who would like to consider themselves as Christians, is clear. Resurrect the spirit of Jesus in your heart and mind and then act accordingly. This is our freedom, which no one can take away, and in this way he and his words will indeed be with us until the end of the world.