Why is there no book of Jesus in the Bible?
Let’s imagine you want to buy two pounds of Golden Delicious apples. Unfortunately, you are too busy to go to the grocery store yourself, so you send your son to buy the apples. Now, suppose that instead of going to the grocery store and buying the apples, your son goes out and finds a dozen strangers, tells these dozen strangers several stories about the types of food you enjoy eating, and then tells the strangers to go out and buy you some food. Does it seem very likely that they will buy you two pounds of Golden Delicious apples?
Now, let’s imagine you are God. Imagine you have realized (in your infinite wisdom) that the laws of the Old Testament aren’t working very well, so you decide to make a new covenant with the people of earth. Unfortunately, you are too busy to go to earth and tell them this new covenant yourself, so you send your son, Jesus. Now, suppose that instead of just going to earth and telling the people of earth what you want written in this new covenant, your son goes out and finds a dozen strangers, tells these dozen strangers various stories about the type of new covenant you want, and then tells the strangers to go out and, in their own words, communicate your new covenant to the people of earth. Does it seem very likely that they will accurately communicate this new covenant?
Have you ever played the game of Telephone? The game of Telephone consists of making a line of people, whispering a story to the first person in line, having that person whisper the story to the second person in line, having that person whisper the story to the third person, etc., until the story reaches the last person in line. The last person in line then tells the story out loud so everyone can hear, and then the original story is read out loud so everyone can compare the original story to the story that reached the end of the line. There’s a good chance the story has changed a lot.
So, here’s my question: why did God play a game of Telephone by sending his son to earth, having his son find a dozen strangers to tell God’s new covenant to, and then having those dozen people go out and communicate God’s new covenant to the people of earth? Wouldn’t it have made a whole lot more sense for God to simply communicate his new covenant directly to the people of earth? Couldn’t God have…oh, I dunno…just broadcast his voice over the entire planet, so everyone could hear directly what God wanted in his new covenant? Why all the hassle and delay of conceiving a son, raising that son to be without sin, putting that son through all sorts of tribulations with pharoah, crucifying that son on a cross, raising that son from the dead, etc.? Why not just go straight to the people and tell them what you want? Indeed, wouldn’t that have made a much bigger impression on us earthlings — everyone on the planet suddenly hearing the same voice (in each person’s own language) with the same message? People would have been asking each other, “Hey, did you hear that voice? Yeah, I did, too. Wow, there’s no doubt about it now — God really exists, and now we know just what he wants!”
But even if God didn’t want to go that route, why didn’t he at least have Jesus write his own book of the Bible: the autobiographical gospel of Jesus? If God wanted a written record of the life of Jesus and of the new covenant that God wanted to create, then why not simply have Jesus write it? Wouldn’t that have made a lot more sense than playing an elaborate game of Telephone with a dozen strangers?
I can tell you one thing: if I were God, I’d have gone directly to the people with a nice speech…maybe some fireworks for entertainment…helium balloons for the kids…maybe even a fancy PowerPoint presentation highlighting the main features and benefits of my new and improved covenant. Sure would be easier than raising a son to do the job for me.
Herbert: You’re assuming lots of things I don’t believe. Sorry, I don’t believe in ethereal sentient beings. See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1220
This is a very interesting post, one which I would very much like to address even though it is over a year old.
Grumpy, you wanted someone to answer the question as to “why” God would be so confusing in his delivery of his law to mankind. I think many people, even “Christians” make one very fundamental error when speaking about the Bible, and that is that they often like to speak of it in parts. The Bible is a book, quite a profound one indeed, but written by humans nonetheless. Sure, many an evangelical preacher continue to assert that the Bible is inerrant because it is Divinely inspired, but that does not mean that it has not been changed throughout the centuries, nor does it mean that it is perfect.
I view the Bible as any other book written, as a whole. It begins with “the beginning” and ends, quite appropriated with The End. Well, Amen, but close enough, eh?
Anywhos, it is, essentially, one grand story. Whether one wishes to view it as a fictional story or a non-fiction is up to personal choice, fortunately. What is important to understand, I think, is that the Bible is a Spiritual story, and not primarily a historical one. The Old Testament provides the History of the Jewish people, and the New Testament provides the History of Jesus (only in the context of his 3 years as a prophet). Ultimately, however, the Story is one to be interpreted by an understanding of mankind’s spiritual journey.
That is the reason why there are mathematical errors in the Bible. Math is not what the Bible teaches, it is not a Math textbook. It is a spirit textbook. Also, realize, that the Bible is not the Be-All, End-All of mankind’s spiritual existence. That is the biggest problem I have had with religious dogmatists and their insistent need to validate their ideas with “what the Bible says.” Chances are, they don’t even really know what the Bible says, because they haven’t read the whole thing, and therefore do not understand its true purpose.
On answering the questions about “no book of Jesus,” one sees in the Bible that the Jews didn’t really believe Jesus. Indeed, they still do not. So, simply writing a book saying: I am God and this is why, simply would not suffice. He needed proof, he needed some sort of validation. Thus: disciples and their “stories” used to explain his teachings and his miracles.
I think the other question about why God would not simply “tell everyone” was also answered. I think there is also the big issue of “Free Will” but that is a rather lengthy discussion that I am sure has been exhausted.
Responding to TheThinkingMan’s suggestion that the god-of-the-Bible could not make a better case for himself with direct evidence, I would point out that: (a) direct evidence is a very effective means of persuasion and (b) nothing would prevent an omnipotent being from providing *frequent* direct evidence of its existence. Just as parents provide daily instructions and corrections to their children, so too the god-of-the-Bible could provide daily instructions and corrections to us. This would pose no threat to our free will, yet it would clearly be a more effective method of spreading The Word. So, why doesn’t it happen? Why doesn’t the god-of-the-Bible transform, say, the table I am sitting at into an animate object that speaks directly to me? Or, why doesn’t the god-of-the-Bible take each of us on a brief field trip to heaven and hell to show us what awaits us after we die? Or, what about transporting us back in time, so we might experience, with our own senses, Jesus walking on water, or the chat that Moses had with the burning bush, or the resurrected Jesus walking around with a spear hole in his torso? Just think about the many, many ways in which the god-of-the-Bible could do a far better job of proving his case than the one that has been offered and I think anyone would have to admit that the god-of-the-Bible uses remarkably ineffective methods for a being who is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent.
In Erich’s first comment, he observed, “If God just made everything clear, there might not be anything to fight wars over anymore. Here’s the position on abortion. Here’s the position on homosexuality. Here’s whether capital punishment is OK. Oh, yeah . . . here’s how to determine how much you are obligated to give to the poor. Then we’d just do it, right?”
Seems to me that is one of the most enormous problems with the Bible. People on *both* sides of nearly *any* moral debate can find support in the Bible for their argument. Abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, contraception, sex education, slavery, wealth accumulation, corporal punishment, voting rights, capitalism, socialism, healthcare, technology, environmental protection, species extinction…the list is virtually endless. I think of this whenever someone declares the Bible to be *the* source of “absolute” morality. Even seemingly absolute commandments such as “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not steal” turn out to have so many exceptions that they have virtually no practical value as moral guidelines. Is it OK to execute a murderer? Is it OK to kill an enemy? Is it OK to kill a madman who is holding a knife to your wife’s throat? Indeed, one huge problem with the Bible’s listing of its many Commandments is how to decide among opposing actions when the Commandments conflict; e.g., is it OK to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving child? Is it OK to kill one person to save a hundred? Was it OK for President Truman to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people with atomic bombs to bring and end to a war that would otherwise have killed millions of people (both American and Japanese)? Is it OK to support stem cell research that uses human embryos to potentially cure diseases that affect millions? The Bible, for all its ‘literal truth’, offers virtually no practical guidance.
A bit of a side question: exactly where did Jesus come from? I can think of four different places mentioned in the Bible: Galilea, Bethlehem, Nazarath, and the City of David (i.e., Jerusalem). Seems odd that the Bible is not even clear about this datum.
Please replace “cross” with “T” - that would be more accurate. Otherwise thanks for this nice post.