BRIBED HISTORY | 2007-01-30
Edmund Burke was a committed Whig during the American Revolution. He was very effective. When the French Revolution came, as every historian knows, he had change of heart. What history doe snot mention is that the King gave Burke a lifetime income of fifteen hundred pounds a year, a staggering sum in those days, to make that change. So Burke wrote "Reflections on the French Revolution" for that lifetime income.
But historians quote "Reflections on the French Revolution" as objective. You can make a LIVING analyzing "Reflections." You cannot make a living just pointing out that the man was bribed.
We have the same problem with Jesus. Most sermons use massive quotes from the Old Testament. Talking about the Golden Rule requires THOUGHT. Quoting some long name of an obscure Old Testament figure makes it look like you really did your homework.
Jesus, too, was bribed. His payoff was his life. After he had reduced the whole basis of Judaism, the Ten Commandments, to two commandments, after he had violated the Sabbath because he was who he was, he said he had NOT come to replace the Old Law. On that one sentence the whole of the last billion sermons about the Old Testament has been based.
You don't mention that Burke was bribed if you want to make a living at history. You don't mention what would have happened to Jesus if he had NOT said the Old Testament was still completely valid. Catholicism bases its major credos on a few sentences in the Matthew Succession. Its opponents base their whole Judeo-Christian bit on that one sentence of Jesus.
Catholics make more sense. If Jesus had NOT said what they base THEIR credo on, he would not have been stoned to death on the spot. He had already been crucified when he said it. But the entire Judeo-Christian bit is based on what Jesus said when he would have been murdered on the spot had he said anything else.
Theologians and historians have "professional objectivity." That means that their total misstatements of reality are predictable.