The Artifact

by Quinn, Jack

  REVEREND LUKEY: What in God’s sacred name are we doing here? Suggesting the Holy Bible was contrived? That millions of Christians have placed their souls in an empty chalice? Shame on you, ladies and gentlemen. Shame, shame, shame!

  RABBI FINESTIEN: It is important to understand the milieu of this writing and what Shimon describes. The Roman occupation of Palestine--so named by the conquers because they originally believed they were at war with the Philistines, was disastrous for Jews. The conquering Empire taxed everything and ruled with an iron fist. Politics and religion were inextricably intertwined, constant sources of consternation and agitation. Bands of religious Zealots sought to overthrow Roman rule, political rebels used the Kingdom of God prophecy of the Torah to foster discontent and allegiance to their militant cause. It was a bloody, chaotic time for Jews. Although not a popular fact for gentiles, all of the earliest Christians, or Jesists, were Jews. Including Jesus and Shimon. The life of the former and autobiography of the latter must be viewed in that context.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: The character traits of the two main protagonists in this tale are absolutely fascinating to me. The younger son adoring and respectful of his caring, perceptive eldest sibling, James, envious, familiar and querulous of the boy Yehoshua nearest his age. I do not believe we need the opinion of a psychologist to perceive the normal interaction of a typical family of any era. Jesus is portrayed as a man of action, impetuous, a risk-taker. This is demonstrated by His teaching Shimon a dangerous lesson in the felled tree incident. His confrontation with the Publican tax collector and Roman soldier at Elizabeth’s home is diametrically opposed to his avowed teachings fifteen years hence. What changed his mind? Or did He really preach ‘turning the other cheek?’

  DR. MONSERRAT: Jesus found love, apparently. Shimon’s assertion that He married His childhood sweetheart, whose murder by Roman soldiers must have had a great impact on His attitude.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: Nowhere in the Gospel or comparable tracts do we find a ‘Rebekah’ associated with Jesus. Of course, we have absolutely no knowledge of His early life whatsoever.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Shimon fills the Biblical and historical gap in the early life of Jesus with the plausible account of His confrontation with the tax collector, the subsequent rape and murder of His wife and son, which forced Him to flee the country to study medicine under an acquaintance of Judah’s in Tyre.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: That not only accounts for His healing abilities, but previews His association with the Galilean, and ultimate crucifixion for sedition.

  BISHOP WOOLY: I am concerned about Shimon’s averred flawless memory. He may believe the

  accuracy of his fifty-year-old recollections, but let’s be mindful that the events he is reporting are based on his personal attitudes and opinions. So far, he comes across the millennia as an iconoclast in his own right, an irreverent youth exposed to a culture typified by the Roman circus that was vastly different from his own. What impact did his deformity have on his viewpoint? How reliable is he as an impartial historian?

  BISHOP CHANDLER: The references to Judah the Galilean are disturbing.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: As well they should be. The original Judah fomented an abortive rebellion about the time of Jesus birth and was executed by Herod. Shimon was referring to Judah’s sons who took up the Zealot cause as did his two grandsons, who were instrumental in organizing the uprising in C.E. 66.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: It seems strange that Judah is known as the Galilean, and in many tracts and references, so is Jesus. Could there be any confusion in that over the past 2000 years by the Bible Editors or anyone else?

  DR. MONSERRAT: Perhaps Shimon has answered the biggest question scholars have regarding Jesus’ death.

  REVEREND LUKEY: Which is?

  DR. MONSERRAT: Why He was crucified.

  REVEREND LUKEY: That’s common knowledge—because He frightened the Temple Priests and

  Pilate by claiming He was king of the Jews! And as we know, to sacrifice Himself to atone for our

  sins.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: He never said that. Nor did He ever claim to be the Son of God. The Gospels quote Him as saying He was the ‘Son of Man,’ that is kind of a code reference to the Old Testament in which the Messiah is so designated.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: The question of why Jesus was crucified has perplexed religious scholars

  for centuries.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: Not the Catholic Church.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: We should acknowledge that crucifixion, as James told Shimon, was unique to the Romans and used only against those convicted of sedition against the Empire, murder or some other grievous crime which subverted the order of Rome.

  DR. MONSERRAT: Religious and ancient history scholars believe Jesus was crucified for one of three reasons: He actually was a rebel; the Romans thought He was a rebel, but was not; He was mistaken for someone else who was a rebel.

  BISHOP CHANDLER: Which brings us back to His association with the grandsons of Judah, the leaders of the Zealots.

  BISHOP WOOLY: As a young man, according to Shimon, He does seem impatient for change.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: ‘The Kingdom of God’ is a concept found throughout our scriptures indicative of the time when justice will prevail and Jews will be free of oppression. We believe that the true Messiah will herald that eternal state, which is the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity. To our minds, Jesus could not have been the Messiah because he did not initiate the Kingdom of God as promised in the Torah—our Old Testament, with which you largely agree.

  REVEREND LUKEY: None of this trash proves anything! Jesus Christ died for our sins, was resurrected and sits at the right hand of God. Believe it, or go to hell and eternal perdition! Period.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: James’ depiction of the circumstances surrounding an execution by

  crucifixion is disconcerting.

  BISHOP WOOLY: There are exceptions to every rule.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: I hope so. I cringe at the thought of Our Savior’s bones scattered around Calvary.

  REVEREND LUKEY: I condemn the effrontery of those people, those soldiers, those thieves, to

  withhold and make us wait for a document that should be ours to evaluate before our congregations receive it.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Evaluate? Censure or interpret? Once scientifically proven as authentic,

  the manuscript seems fairly straightforward.

  DR. MONSERRAT: It needs an informed framework, however. A knowledge of Bible history.

  BISHOP CHANDLER: Shimon contends that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had passed away of natural causes and was interned in Athens years after her son was crucified. If that is true, the bodily assumption of the mother of God into heaven comes into question.

  BISHOP WOOLY: That belief is not universally held by all Christians, nor does it weaken the argument for the divinity of Christ.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: Shimon doesn’t specifically deny the Ascension of Mary as he did the Resurrection.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: Probably because it didn’t happen and didn’t become part of the legend until dreamed up by some second-century Bible copyist. Shimon negates a great deal of Biblical lore by omission.

  BISHOP WOOLY: Your persistence in that line of debate is disheartening.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: What about Shimon’s negation of Judas’ suicide?

  REVEREND LUKEY: Shimon had a thing for Judas, that’s pretty clear. Maybe they were gay.

  General laughter erupted around the table.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: Thank you for the comic relief, Reverend. I find that difficult to credit, however, given the man’s admission to so many dalliances with the opposite sex.

  REVEREND LUKEY: He could have been trying to stay in the closet.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: Let’s not confuse our discussion by getting into that sensitive subject with several million viewers of all denominations watching. Moving right along, then....

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: Shimon’s antip
athy to Paul baffles me.

  DR. MONSERRAT: He could have been jealous of the man virtually running away with his brother’s teachings.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: If it wasn’t for Saint Paul, there might not be a Christian religion.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: True. Shimon contends that the initial anti-Jesist Saul was self-converted after being struck by lightning. That makes more sense than the Biblical contention that he communed with the deceased Jesus.

  BISHOP WOOLY: Shimon is the most adamant anti-Christ in history.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Maybe he was just telling it as it happened, and was angry with Paul for trying to make something else of it for his own purpose. Like Jim Jones and the cyanide Kool-Aid debacle in 1978 in Guyana, all for money and sex, using religion to get them.

  REVEREND LUKEY: I resent that!

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Beg pardon, Reverend?

  REVEREND LUKEY: Casting aspersions on Saint Paul by comparing him to one evil evangelical minister is outrageous. Take me for example.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: No thank you, Reverend.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: Gentlemen, we’re getting sidetracked here. We were discussing the possibility that Shimon rejected his brothers’ teachings, miracles, his very life as we have come to know it.

  DR. MONSERRAT: Put yourself in Shimon’s position for a moment. A younger brother who grew up with this unremarkable older sibling until He suddenly assumes the role of rabbi or teacher, preaching his own variation of their religion that would release Jews from some of the more restrictive Torah Laws. Relaxing those mandates would pave the way for them to challenge the harsh occupation of their country by the mighty Roman Empire.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: A noble historical position.

  DR. MONSERRAT: Exactly. In that context, Shimon comes across as a pragmatic, world-weary man protective of his brother’s memory as an heroic advocate of a free Palestine, as opposed to the incredible resurrected Messiah whom Paul, Peter and the apostles were proselytizing. Remember, there is absolutely no known contention of any resurrection by anyone for at least sixty years after Jesus was crucified. Shimon didn’t allude to it or deny it. The historian Josephus mentioned Jesus once in his writings: that he was crucified for sedition. Nothing more. Wouldn’t an historian at least allude to an outrageous rumor like that? Don’t forget, the two men knew and fought together.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: That is a pretty long psychological stretch, Professor. As is all validation by omission.

  REVEREND LUKEY: Why do ancient miracles and supernatural events have to make sense to our modern day skepticism? Enlightened faith is all that’s required for any God-fearing Christian.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Then why doesn’t God speak to holy men today as He did then? Surely, inexplicable miraculous cures have been reported during the last 2,000 years, but no credible intervention by a Supreme Being, no appearance, conversation or instructions from God, as with Moses when accepting the Ten Commandments, no reprieve from death as Lazarus and Jesus.

  DR. MONSERRAT: Precisely. Those preposterous events were confined to the 3,000-year period of the Old Testament, culminating in the eighteen months Shimon claims was the public life of Jesus. Visions and myths were common in every culture, including the pagan gods of Greeks and

  Romans, Buddhists and Mohammedans.

  BISHOP WOOLY: It disturbs me that Shimon’s autobiography and this discussion threatens to undermine the very foundation of Christianity. If the world draws that conclusion, with what shall we replace it?

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: Our God-given faith, Bishop. Despite any contradictions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John made by the unknown autobiographer Shimon.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: He is forthright and ingenuous about his own experiences, faults and

  excesses. It seems unlikely that he would turn devious regarding his brother’s divinity and culpability in the rebel movement against Rome.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: Or his apparent candor in relating his own history was a ploy to make his contentions about his brother credible. His accurate reports of Paul’s travels, Paul’s, James’ and Peter’s deaths, his candor and accuracy regarding the Roman war segues right into his obfuscation of Jesus miracles and resurrection.

  DR. MONSERRAT: Shimon would have to have been an extremely devious person to have done that.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: And to what purpose? The New Testament wasn’t written until almost one hundred years later. He couldn’t have been denying what had not yet been proposed as fact.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: It is possible that he had no ulterior motive. He does demonstrate a strength to persevere while struggling under the oppressive heel of their conquerors, the distain and animosity of gentiles and Arabs for Jews. ‘It is not easy to be a Jew,’ Shimon admits. We do not cry in our borsht, so to speak. But it often amazes me how so many Jews have prospered throughout the ages against such universal antipathy.

  REVEREND LUKEY: Tell me about that. How does it compare to the human bondage of my ancestors?

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: We all have common grounds if we look for them.”

  DR. MONSERRAT: Shimon does present a valid rationale for his brother changing his name from Yehoshua to Jesus.

  REVEREND LUKEY: That He was wanted by the Romans for murdering three of their soldiers? Preposterous! I see no merit in this treatise.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: Let’s get back to the doctrinal implications of Shimon’s autobiography. Jesus admits being influenced by the philosophy of Diogenes and the Greek Cynics. From which He apparently borrowed the idea of eschewing material possessions, thereby gaining ultimate power over all.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: To be frank, that is one biblical oxymoron I have always had difficulty absorbing. The followers of Jesus were mostly poor peasants whose singular desire on earth was to acquire the material goods that would make their lives comfortable. They were already decimated by poverty. How would this admonition to shuck their few extant possessions be received?

  REVEREND LUKEY: He was speaking to the wealthy Pharisees.

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: Who were few and far between among his audiences.

  BISHOP CHANDLER: Shimon seems to say that one of Jesus’ basic tenets was the ultimate power that comes to those who seek only their own internal peace and have nothing to lose.

  DR. MONSERRAT: You’d have a tough time convincing modern women and men of that.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: It may work on an individual basis, but practically every time some radical proponent of community sharing of tasks and resources mesmerizes a group of dysfunctional sheep, the sect ends up in polygamy, sex orgies or mass suicide.

  MONSIGNOR GALLAGHER: Shimon disagrees with both his brothers on matters of religion. Wouldn’t he have a personal interest in undermining the teachings of Jesus, His miracles, Paul?

  REVEREND LUKEY: Absolutely! This so-called autobiography may have been authenticated as

  a first-century document apparently written by the brother of Jesus, but who’s to say it wasn’t penned by some alienated follower or outright enemy?

  DR. MONSERRAT: Back to Shimon the ex-gladiator/slave for a moment. I infer from many of his comments that he underwent a similar disenfranchisement from the civilian population of Palestine that some of our own Vietnam and even Iraq war vets are experiencing today. This would certainly color his attitude toward many things, including the teachings of Jesus.

  BISHOP WOOLY: Repudiating His teachings, invalidating His miracles, plus a lifelong disaffection with God.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Gentlemen, ladies—it may sound to some that we are seeking to disprove the allegations of the autobiography.

  BISHOP WOOLY: We are simply exploring all possibilities, just as you naysayers do regarding God and all religions.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Our denials are based on rational thought and search for proof and truth. The direction many on this panel seem to be taking is a good old fashioned Salem witch hunt.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: What about Judas? There have been several postulated revisions in modern times to t
hat infamous disciple’s role in the Roman arrest of Jesus. What is Shimon telling us?

  REVEREND LUKEY: A lot of baloney!

  PROFESSOR BUXTON: Shimon paints a confusing portrait of Judas at best. Did Judas consort with Jesus inciting His followers to rebel against the egregious oppression of successive Roman Emperors? Or was he making a point regarding the difficulty of forgiveness.

  RABBI FIENSTIEN: Was Judas really a confidant of Judah the Galilean who conspired not to turn his master in to the authorities, but to save Jesus from them?

  REVEREND LUKEY: That part of his story is ridiculous. As with most of it. We should stick

  with the Holy Bible.

  MODERATOR ROBERTS: What do you make of the last conversation between Jesus and His brothers?

  BISHOP WOOLY: It is quite clear, in the telling, but in blatant contrast to traditional beliefs. Shimon claims that Jesus openly admits to fostering rebellion. In direct contradiction to an earlier statement by Jesus that His mission was to prepare people to enter the Kingdom of God. Yet in the dungeon Shimon claims that he admitted he was not the Messiah.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Historians of ancient Christianity have never been satisfied with the

  resurrection hypothesis. The assertion that Jesus appeared in the flesh to His apostles was never mentioned in any extant tract until two centuries later in the Bible.

  REVEREND LUKEY: Historians be damned! Christianity has been based on that very premise for 2000 years.

  ATHEIST DOUGLAS: Who were Mark, Luke, Mathew and John, but historians, many of whom

  pen historical events for their own purposes or with flagrant errors and omissions. An autobiographer, on the other hand, might attempt to protect his own reputation or posture himself as an heroic figure, but rarely use it for the sole purpose of attacking an enemy. It seems pointless to dispute the accuracy of the Bible or Shimon’s tract without more knowledge of relationships.

  Lukey slammed a broad palm down on the polished table surface with a resounding crack that caused involuntary bodily jolts and exclamations among the other panelists.