We recently got back from a wonderful trip to Rome (The Eternal City) where Christina and I had the opportunity to checkout some of the most fascinating Christian sights in the world. We visited Saint Peters Square, Saint Paul’s Church, several different catacombs and much more. But even if you are not a Christian, Rome boasts some of the most interesting history (particularly the first century) in all the world. I happen to be a Christian and someone who is absolutely captivated with the Roman Empire and its emperors of the first century, from the beginning of the Julio-Claudian reign of Augustus to Nero and the end of the Julio-Claudian’s. Of course after the Julio-Claudians was a terrible time known as the year of the four emperors, which ended with the rise of the Flavian dynasty: Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. While these men’s lives are more than interesting (to say the least) there is another man—if you want to call Him that, that lived on the far eastern end of the Roman Empire during the first third of that century in a remote area called Galilee of the Gentiles, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is singlehandedly responsible for producing what began as a tiny ripple in the Roman Empire to what would shortly thereafter become a tidal wave literally reshaping not just the Roman Empire—but the world.
But how could this be? Why did this movement (Christianity) take off while others like the Bar Kokhba movement fail and fizzle away soon to be forgotten? Well, that’s a huge question to answer that has puzzled skeptical critics and scholars for centuries. But one fact remains, the adherents of this new-found movement were not willing to recant or change their beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest followers of the Jesus movement believed something so strange that it was a complete scandal to Jews and folly to Greeks—that a crucified criminal not only rose from the dead but was God too. Now, looking at this from the outside looking in (from a pagan’s perspective) and not allowing for super natural explanations, it seems abundantly obvious that the people of this small movement (the Christian’s) used the ultimate Judo flip on the Roman Empire. I mean if we’re talking David and Goliath—here it is. If you are even remotely acquainted with the Roman Empire then you know that Rome appointed the kings, Rome made the laws and Rome enforced those laws. They were firm adherents of law and order—you follow our laws or we’ll put you in order. In other words, if Rome didn’t appoint the king, then Rome would squash any and every movement that threatened its supreme authority. Enter the Christian’s. Who is King in Christendom? Caesar? No. Jesus is King. That’s a big no no that is liable to get you into some boiling water (that was why the Romans killed Jesus). Now keep in mind that by and large the real persecution of Christian’s didn’t begin until 64 AD after Nero blames the Christian’s for the great fire that destroyed five of the seven precincts in Rome. In fact, early on no senior Roman authority took much notice of Christianity as it was widely recognized as an extension or sect of Judaism, (much like the Essenes) and Judaism was a legal religion to practice in the Roman Empire along with all the other pagan polytheistic religions. In fact, the Romans were quite tolerant and inclusive of religions generally absorbing some of a given religious systems beliefs and practices. So while yes, the idea that Caesar wasn’t Lord and Jesus was Lord did contribute to some isolated pockets of persecution (mainly with pagan Gentiles) what really made this movement progress was when the real persecution did arrive, these adherents of the Jesus movement refused to recant and were often given an ultimatum: deny Jesus and offer up incense to Caesar and live, or stick with this Jesus fellow, a crucified criminal and die. Well, these Christians would willingly line up lay down and die for Jesus. This was seen as madness, the idea of dyeing for a crucified criminal struck people then as peculiar and crazy as much as it does now--but why? Why die for a crucified man? And even more troubling of a question is, why would their God allow them to suffer and die such gruesome deaths at the hands of the Romans and pagans? Remember when I mentioned the Christian movement leveled the ultimate judo flip on the Romans. Well, here it is. Rome didn’t tolerate sedition or the undermining of their reign and rule, and in order to put people in line, they made public spectacles out of them which in turn caused anyone and everyone who was following a given movement or even thinking about joining it to quickly recoil and get back in line. But the plan actually backfired with the Christians! The very tortures and exquisite evils done to the Christians actually worked against Rome; instead of squashing this movement—it grew. Think about the power of the Christian message from a first century mind for a moment. Imagine a world where Caesar is Lord and the pagan gods are abundant, uncaring and capricious (not giving a lick about you). However, someone like Saint Paul arrives to your town and delivers a message to a slave or a common person telling them their lives are infinitely valuable to the one true God, and that He cares for them and values them just as much as Caesar—you’re going to latch onto this. Imagine being told that God became a man lived a perfect life here on earth, but died the most gruesome of deaths by means of crucifixion on a cross because He loved them. People were running to the cross, people were getting baptized which sadly the ancients knew more about than we do in the present recognizing that those who were baptized were leaving the social constructs of society and familial pagan beliefs for something radically different (which lead to isolation from family and friends). Remember society wasn’t private back then unless you were rich, so everyone knew when you weren’t coming to the temple of Zeus anymore or coming to the sacrifices anymore. So with all the power and might that Rome held tightly within its fist, no amount of torture could stop this movement that eradicated the notion that slaves and women were subhuman, rather in the sight of the one true God all were equal—what a powerful message. So if Rome cant stop this message from spreading, it must cutoff the source of the message—the messengers Saint Peter, Saint Paul and the others. According to early church sources, after the Christians were blamed for the great fire in Rome, Saint Peter and Saint Paul became the prime targets. Again, the idea was simple, cutoff the head and the body will die. Well, just as the founder of this movement Jesus of Nazareth died at the hands of the Roman Empire and the movement was not put out, so too with the subsequent deaths of Saint Peter and Saint Paul the movement was further ignited. It seems a bit strange to us as moderns that death can bring forth growth, and that somehow God allowing His primary mouth pieces to die horribly can be seen as fruitful. But the Christian mindset is not one based on earthly things or some sort of panacea. Yes, Jesus as a babe was spared by God because God had a plan that would not be thwarted by the enemy, but there comes a time when God (at least in the Christian mind) allows certain things to happen that while at first seem to be cloudy to us soon become clear as the smoke leaves the room. On this side of eternity we may not know why God allows certain things to take place, and again, that’s okay for the Christian because ultimately man is finite and God is infinite.
1 Comment
For the past forty years non-Muslim scholars have been looking deeper into the Quran, the Hadith and the biographies of Muhammad than ever before. Of course prior to closer examinations of these Islamic documents and sources, everything was performed in-house exclusively by Islamic scholars and historians. So for centuries and centuries there was never really any serious non-Islamic scholarly work done to perform checks and balances and possible critiques on the Quran and Muhammad. And a big reason for silence on this matter has been because of the backlash or death threats that often ensue with any such critique. One of the questions that bubbled to the surface has to do with the existence of Muhammad himself; the most beloved figure in Islamic history—the founder of Islam. Scholars (good scholars) have seriously challenged the actual existence of Muhammad. As someone who has read the Quran, a fraction of the countless Hadith’s, it seemed ridiculous to ask such a question. While it didn’t seem as crazy as someone questioning the existence of Jesus of Nazareth—it did strike me as quite odd.
In order to understand why some non-Muslim scholars are grappling with this notion that Muhammad may have never existed, we need to know a few things about Islam. If you were to pick up the Quran and start reading it, you would immediately be faced with two challenges. First, in Islamic tradition, the only way to truly read the Quran in its pure form, is to know Arabic. The Quran was first penned in Arabic and anything translated from the Arabic into another language is not the Quran. Second, the Quran is not arranged chronologically, rather it is generally arranged from the shorter suraa (chapters) to longer. This makes it very difficult to follow any type of narrative. But what’s most interesting about the Quran itself is the fact that it is replete with narratives and figures from the Bible. For example, Moses is mentioned over 130 times and the Virgin Mary is featured with more prominence than in the New Testament. This is where knowing the backstory of the Quran is so vital. The first revelations for the Quran were given to Muhammad while in, Mecca. Now Mecca, is far removed from the Roman Empire that ruled during the time (Eastern Roman Empire) which consisted of a melting pot of Jewish/Christian influence and traditions. The problem that arises from that is, is that based on Muslim sources, at that time there were no Christian’s or Jews in Mecca,--only pagans. Of course this begs the question or questions. If the Roman Empire influence had not penetrated Mecca at that time and no Jewish/Christian influence was present; either the Quran was inspired by Allah or there was a presence of these influences there at the time, and historians tell us there was clearly the presence Roman influence, heretical Christianity and Jews in the area at the time. Most fringe groups of heretical Christianity that were banned from Byzantium made there way out into the Arab world. This would easily explain the distorted view of the Trinity. So how else could you explain all these sophisticated references to the Bible and Roman Empire then? Also, we are told Muhammad was illiterate even though that contradicts the Quran, therefore, he couldn’t have picked up a Bible and started taking stories from it. So if scholars rely on the Muslim accounts of how the Quran came to be, then it was a miracle. Now one would think with all these allusions that tell us so much about these people, places and particulars that the biographies and information—especially about Muhammad would abound. There is a quote from a Muslim scholar that says, we can know almost nothing about Jesus, but with Muhammad we know everything. We know where Muhammad lived, his economics, his wives, his favorite food and how often he brushed his teeth. The details in the biographies about Muhammad are quite intimate and detailed. But, here is the problem. All of these wonderful things we are told about Muhammad are not told 10, 20, 30, 50 years later, rather our earliest biography of Muhammad doesn’t come into anyone’s hands until 200 years after his death. So AD 800 is when we start to get our first biographies of Muhammad, and over the course of two more centuries, these biographies begin to pile up more and more. Here’s what’s really interesting about these biographies that start popping up everywhere, as they are copied and recopied, and more biographies spring into existence, our knowledge of Muhammad also increases growing bigger and bigger. This puts up a huge red flag regarding credibility. In any type of ancient historical study, historians are looking for source material which is closest to when the original events took place, multiple sources and independent sources, and the farther that separation becomes, the less trustworthy the sources become (none of which we possess for Muhammad). So for 200 years after the death of Muhammad, scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim have no source material to work with—it is like a black hole. This lack of information for centuries regarding Islam’s most central figure has caused scholars to question Muhammad’s existence. Something else that is curious about the questioning of Muhammad’s existence is the fact that after his death and the Quran was completed (orally). In the ensuing decades of the Muslim conquering of North Africa and the middle-east, there is no mention of the Quran or Muhammad--complete silence. Even the people that were conquered never mention Muhammad, Muslim or the Quran in their sources, they simply say the Arabs destroyed them. One more sweeping statement and interesting tidbit regarding our “earliest” biography of Muhammad-- which was done in Egypt. When this biography was in the making, the biographer said, that he was omitting the most gruesome details about Muhammad that people would be repulsed by. So does this information prove Muhammad didn’t exist? The only criterion that is posited to support the existence of Muhammad's existence is the criterion of embarrassment. This is a powerful example that does lend credibility that Muhammad did in fact exist. When texts critics and scholars are looking for credibility and truth about a document, one feature they look for are embarrassing details. For example, the fact that Muhammad married his son’s wife Zayd, that Muhammad was demon possessed, that he was suicidal after his encounter with Gabriel or that he married a six year old. These are all strikingly embarrassing features that likely would have been omitted from Muhammad’s life, but fact that they’re there suggests that these things really did happen. However, some have argued that during these centuries these were events that wouldn’t have necessarily been embarrassing to audiences. It is my contention that as obscured and unreliable as our information on Muhammad is, it is likely that he did really exist. Of course much more could be said, but as Islam gets explored in more depth—truth will prevail. The traditional Protestant approach of conversion to Christianity is usually understood as confession and belief in Jesus Christ coupled with repentance. However, if that is true, then what exactly was Saint Paul’s “conversion” on the Road to Damascus. In the Acts of the Apostles, we have three recorded accounts of Saint Paul’s “conversion” --if we want to call it that. I use quotations around “conversion” because often times when we speak of conversion or someone becoming a Christian, we do so in terms of someone moving from agnosticism, atheism, or another religion to Christianity. But is that what happened to Saul on the way to Damascus? Was it a conversion in the sense by which we think? Was Saul swapping one religion for the other?
Saul, prior to his divine encounter was a thoroughly committed Jew that was zealous for the traditions and faith of his ancestors. One could say that Saul saw himself as a Phineas or Judas Maccabaeus like figure in the sense that he was simply trying to stop his fellow Jews from buying into this whole paradigm that Jesus, a man crucified by the Romans, was the promised Messiah spoken of by the prophets of old. These were likely the thoughts streaming through Saul’s mind as he pursued those of the Way on the way to Damascus. In fact, Saint Paul would later tell Agrippa that he was compelled to cause those of the Way to blaspheme the name of Jesus--Acts 26:11. However, when Saul was blinded and tumbled off his horse while pursuing those that followed Jesus, he looked up, only to see the God he was worshiping the whole time. Saul was perfectly in the right with regard to his complete zeal for the One true God and devotion to Him; but Saul was completely wrong in his understanding of what the One true God’s purposes were—until now. Oh my goodness thought, Saul. These people were right—Stephen was right! Jesus is kyrios Lord! Saul was then led by hand to Damascus where he received the Holy Spirit and was Baptized. Upon receiving the Holy Spirit, we read that something like scales fell from his eyes. In the Orthodox Church, we understand that to mean that just as Saul received “true” sight after Baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit-- so too do we. Of course not everyone experiences the same divine encounter that Saint Paul had on the road that day, but our “conversion” is indeed the same. So many times the focus of our faith is placed in some type of prayer or commitment—and to a certain extent that can be true. But the changed Christian life is marked by the blinding reality that Jesus is Lord—a scandal and foolishness to the world. True saving faith is not marked merely by a confession, but a radical reorientation of what we once believed--we were blind but now we see. Many times in Protestantism, salvation is solidified by a specific day when a confession was made. However, as demonstrated by Saint Paul, true saving faith wasn’t complete after the scales fell from his eyes and he could now see, rather that was only the beginning of a life marked by faithfulness to Christ and the living out of that faith until his last breath. In Orthodoxy, we like to say: I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. |
|