Read Zac Smith's original column: Story of Jesus a ‘pervasive nonsensicality’
One might think that it would not be too much to ask a reader to go over an article carefully, making sure he or she has understood it, before typing out an incensed, essay-length response. However, it seems this is too great a demand for most OU students or, at least, the ones who feel compelled to write in with those lengthy, passionate replies.
When a reader responds to an article without fully understanding it, perhaps skimming over it rather than reading it word-for-word, perhaps making assumptions about what the writer will say that get mixed in with what he or she actually has said, the reader ends up attacking a phantasmal set of arguments.
This, unfortunately, is what has occurred with the counterpoint that ran yesterday.
This piece is written in part as a point-by-point response to that counterpoint, and so will probably not flow as smoothly as a self-contained column. For maximum coherence, I recommend you read it with yesterday’s counterpoint on hand.
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that Christianity “stole” most of the characteristics it has inherited from other religions. Religions commonly borrow from one another, as social movements may take ideological or stylistic inspiration from their predecessors.
It’s a natural process, and that Christianity has, like every other religion, gone through it does not imply that its creators engaged in deliberate intellectual theft.
I also did not deny Jesus’ existence. This is one of those fine but crucial distinctions that trips respondents up. I assert that there is no extra-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence, but not that Jesus did not exist.
I actually tend to suspect that Jesus did exist or, rather, that the Jesus character in the Bible was based on an actual person. The reason for this is that, while Jesus is repeatedly referred to as having come from Nazareth, a convoluted and historically improbable series of events is used to transport Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth, but allow them to return to Nazareth quickly, establishing Nazareth as Jesus’ hometown and Bethlehem as his birthplace.
This strikes me as an attempt to reconcile the life of a man who came out of Nazareth with Old Testament prophecy predicting that the messiah would come from Bethlehem, something that would have been unnecessary if the Jesus character was being created from scratch on the page.
Of course, I could easily be incorrect. My knowledge of this particular area of Biblical history is limited. Jesus may have been a creation of whole cloth or a composite of many different individuals. But, in any case, to ascribe the positive denial of Jesus’ existence to me can only be the result of careless reading.
All that said, I appreciate your knowing better than to quote Josephus at me.
You say that “’contradictions’ aren’t always what people claim them to be,” which seems to imply that you believe that the two scriptural contradictions I brought up as examples are invalid. However, if this is what you mean to say, you provide no substantiating evidence.
The irony is that these three things which have eaten up the bulk of your response are in no way material to the point of my column. As you’ll see if you review it, I brought them up only to dismiss them immediately as irrelevant to why I reject the Jesus narrative as nonsensical.
I brought them up and then made a point of dismissing them in an attempt to keep people from mistakenly thinking that I was arguing on the basis of them, on the basis of Jesus’ probable nonexistence or nondivinity-- and, despite this, this is the exact mistake which you’ve ended up making.
I wanted to lay aside things like scriptural historicity, a topic which I’ve heard debated ad nauseam, and explore the Jesus narrative’s inadequacies from an angle which is, for me personally, comparatively fresh.
To put it as un-misunderstandably as I can, the objections I express in my column toward the Jesus narrative would still stand even if I believed in Jesus’ divinity, sin, God, Heaven, Hell, et cetera. If proof suddenly materialized that Jesus certainly existed, that Christianity was not influenced by earlier religions, and that all apparent errors in the scriptures are illusory, it would not invalidate my points.
Now you’re getting the “jest” of my column.
Anyway, you say that I have few arguments, yet, in seven hundred words, you barely manage to touch on them. Have you explained how it could possibly be reasonable to subject a human being to an infinity of torture for a minor transgression? Sure, my writing “simply dismisses a 2,000-year-old religious tradition” but how does any of that make God’s arranging for his avatar to be temporarily incapacitated a sacrifice?
Do I have to have a degree in divinity in order to point out things that don’t make sense?
You do note, fairly, that I don’t lay out my reasons for thinking that verses like Luke 6:30 and Matthew 5:39 do not constitute good advice. This is because I didn’t imagine that anyone could not see why they are ridiculous.
Concerning Matthew 5:39, “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” responding passively to abuse empowers the abuser, which would be a bad thing for reasons which I believe are obvious but which I will lay out explicitly if you find it necessary. It’s an unresistant, “turn the other cheek” attitude that might, for example, keep an abused spouse stuck in a harmful relationship. (And that’s a relatively mild example-- imagine how “do not resist an evil person” would work out while dealing with a home-invading psychopath.)
And concerning Luke 6:30, “Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back,” truthfully, if I asked you for a thousand dollars right now, would you really believe the reasonable response to be to hand it over? If I took your car/wallet/laptop/iPhone, mightn’t you begin to see that asking for it back would be more reasonable than giving it up without a word? Must I really explain to you why Jesus’ advice here is poor?
So far as the comparison of my style of rhetoric to Ann Coulter, etc., I don’t go out of my way to either harass or court my audience (which is not to say that I’m not flattered by the supportive comments, amused by the vitriolic ones, and appreciative of both).
I find, for the reasons I’ve laid out, that the Jesus story is nonsense. Would it really be helpful to obscure this sentiment in an effort at seduction? Would it be better to change “The Jesus story is nonsense” into “The Jesus story deserves critical scrutiny”?
No. The world has a surplus of charming speakers. It needs honest ones more.
If you want to go back to my column and draft a counterpoint that addresses its core points, I’d love to read it. If any of the information I spit out in my Tuesday column and am currently carrying with me is inaccurate, I would, of course, like to know so that I do not disseminate it further. If you’re interested in discussion as a means to sort good information from bad rather than to toss around undissectible generalities and to make unflattering comparisons (Coulter, not Dawkins), I believe we could do some talking that’s productive.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Chestertonian 3 years ago
The word is "gist," not "jest." And I believe Gandhi and MLK might have something to say in favor of nonviolnce.
RedRed_Krovy 3 years ago
"When a reader responds to an article without fully understanding it, perhaps skimming over it rather than reading it word-for-word, perhaps making assumptions about what the writer will say that get mixed in with what he or she actually has said, the reader ends up attacking a phantasmal set of arguments."
As you did with his.
The truth: you criticize Christianity because it is fair game; it is edgy in many circles; and you receive many responses--i.e. this one--asking you to maybe give the moral crusade a rest.
On a lighter note, I do enjoy your articles, equally as much as I enjoy the heated responses. I just chose to point out a flaw.
mr_stu 3 years ago
Great response!
LauraGibbs 3 years ago
It is one thing for Zac Smith to say that he finds the words of Matthew 5:39 ridiculous (he is entitled to his opinion, of course), but it is quite something else when he asserts that everyone else should find it ridiculous, which is what he does here: "This is because I didn’t imagine that anyone could not see why they are ridiculous."
Zac Smith must have very limited powers of imagination if he cannot imagine that people have taken the advice to turn the other cheek very seriously over the past two thousand years of Christian history. There are many movements in Christianity for whom the advice to "turn the other cheek" has been viewed as an essential element of Christian teaching, anything but ridiculous.
There is a peace church tradition, for example, including such movements as the Mennonites and the Amish, as well as the Quakers, dedicated pacifists for whom non-resistance to evil is an act of faith. The great writer Leo Tolstoy considered this teaching to be an essential aspect of Christianity, and his writings in turn inspired Mohandas Gandhi in his development of a non-violent resistance to British rule in India, which in turn inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Civil Rights movement here in America.
So, if Zac Smith does ever decide he wants to actually learn something about Christianity, rather than simply dismissing it as ridiculous, here's another book he might read: Mennonites, Amish, and the American Civil War by James Lehman and Steven Nolt From the book's jacket: "James O. Lehman and Steven M. Nolt describe the various strategies used by religious groups who struggled to come to terms with the American mainstream without sacrificing religious values -- some opted for greater political engagement, others chose apolitical withdrawal, and some individuals renounced their faith and entered the fight."
That's the kind of book that demonstrates the incredible variety of religious faith and religious practice in the history of this country - a variety that the monotony of Zac Smith's commentary completely fails to acknowledge.
In short, Zac Smith's own personal insight into the Biblical text has little to commend itself - and why should it? It's not a topic he seems to have any real knowledge of. It would be much better if he wrote articles on Vonnegut or Nabokov instead, telling us about something he does like and does value, rather than ranting about something he does not value and about which he knows very little.