LEX LUTHOR AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: A THEODICY

 

Part 2: The Philosophical Problem of Evil

It may prove beneficial to the reader to know exactly what the term “theodicy” actually means.  It is comprised of two Greek words, theos meaning “God” and dice meaning “justice”. A theodicy therefore is an attempt to show that, not only does God exist, but also that He is just, regardless of the existence of evil in the world.

     While it is true that God created all things in existence, it is not true that He created evil. Evil is not a thing or substance but a lack in some good thing, as such God cannot be the author of evil. Augustine argued that evil is privation, the same argument was echoed by Aquinas. Every creation of God is good; evil exists when that good thing is corrupted. That trees exist is a great good. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen; we expel carbon dioxide while taking in oxygen. Disease, decay, or rottenness in a tree is a lack in that good thing. Such decay exists as an evil in that tree, the evil does not exist a se. Some have argued, incorrectly so, that to state evil as a privation is to claim that evil is an absence of good, but that is simply not the case. Evil is a lacking or corruption of some good thing that should be there but is not, as in the instance of lost sight or limbs in those things which should possess them and do not. The fact that a stone cannot see is not evidence of evil because it lacks that ability. By their very nature stones do not possess such an ability, people and animals do, therefore for a person to lack the ability to see is an evil. Explaining evil as a lack in a good thing does not explain where the lack comes from. All it explains is the nature of evil as a real privation in good things. Where the corruption came from is another question.[1] Philosopher Jeremy A. Evans has said,

The concept of evil as a privation of the good has been essential in undermining at least on argument against the existence of God from evil, namely that God caused evil...God created only actual things (or substances). Evil is not an actual thing (or substance). Therefore, God did not create evil.[2]  

     The moral argument for God’s existence attempts to ascertain whether objective moral values and duties actually exist.  If objective moral values and duties do exist, then God exists. If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist therefore, God does exist. If we are going to claim that objective morality does not exist, and that morality only exists subjectively then Hitler did nothing wrong, he was simply doing what he believed was right. But if we know that to perform an act of genocide on a group of people in an effort obliterate them is abhorrently wrong, then we know that certain evils are objectively wrong and that therefore objective morality does exist. 

     When we speak of value, we are speaking of the worth of some thing, this idea is also transferable to persons as well as particular acts or behaviors. When dealing with moral values we are weighing certain particulars regarding whether those things, or persons, or acts, or behaviors are good or bad. Moral duty has to do with moral obligations, what one ought or ought not do.

     A few years ago, I was speaking on Hamartiology, or the Doctrine of Sin, when one gentleman made the comment that “in order for us to know what good is, evil must exist”, but is that really true?  Is there really no other way for us to tell what is good unless evil is present? As I thought about it, I concluded that the statement was false. All that would be truly necessary for Adam and Eve to know what good was, would be for them to know the nature and character of God, which they would have known intimately before the fall. True to his own method of inquiry, Socrates first posed the question, “Is the good good because God wills it? Or does God will it because it is good?” One of the world’s foremost apologists, Dr. William Lane Craig, has put the question this way,

Is something good because God will it? Or does God will something because it is good? If you say that something is good because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. But if you say that God wills something it is good, then it what is good or bad is independent of God. IN that case, moral values and duties exist independently of God. There's a third alternative, namely, God will something because He is good.[3] (Emphasis added).

     In other words, if that which is good is only good “because God wills it”, then what is good is subjective based solely on His own discretion, not based on any legal grounds. If this is how good is determined, then God appears to act capriciously. But if you were to say God wills something because the act, in and of itself, is good or bad then moral values and duties are independent of God. But God, by His very nature, is good, it is not possible for Him to conduct Himself in any other way, He is a law unto Himself, for that reason “God wills something because He is good”. Adam and Eve would have known this.      

     The question comes down to this, can we be good without God? If the answer is yes, what reason could one possibly give for being good?  How would you determine what good is in the first place? Would not all goodness become subjective?  “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. (Judges 21:25 ESV)[4] If we are the ones to set the standard for that which is right and wrong then what becomes good for me may not be good for you. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” —Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf).[5]  Again, if that which is good is subjective from one person to another, then Hitler was merely doing what he believed was right and cannot therefore be faulted. For this reason, there must be an objective standard which has been set which states that the act of murder is not just bad, it is categorically wrong. But if there is no objectively set standard of duty, then there is no morally binding obligation weighing on my conscience, and yet my conscience prevails. Moral values and duties do not exist independent of persons, that is, benevolence, mercy, justice, etcetera, do not exist in a vacuum. Each exists as a verb, which can be active or passive. But in order for such to exist bodies must be present for such to bestowed upon another (active), or for one to be the recipient of (passive). Were such properties to exist independent of persons then their effects are non-binding and non-obligatory, yet my “conscience bearing witness” to show mercy to those who are suffering indicates that such properties do not exist independent of persons.     

     There are two aspects to the problem of evil, the Intellectual and the Emotional. The intellectual aspect can be further subdivided into the Logical Problem of Evil (LPE) and the Evidential Problem of Evil (EPE). The former addresses the plausibility of the existence of God and evil simultaneously. The latter addresses how such a God, if there is one, could allow for the existence of such evil in the world. But what would cause someone to question the first argument? Why would it not be possible for God and evil to co-exist?  Do they know something about the nature of God to suggest that the existence of both God and evil is incompatible?  The argument is often made that if God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent why does evil remain?  Thus, leading to the conclusion that if God is powerful enough to remove it, He must be insensitive to it, or if He is all-loving and sensitive to it, then He must not be powerful enough to remove it. Or it may be that He just does not exist at all. But there is one aspect of the nature of God, which is often overlooked, namely, that He is omniscient while we are not. The adjective “omniscient” is derived from two Latin words, Omni meaning all and scient meaning knowledge.  As such, anything that can be known is known completely by God, past, present, and future. He is infinite in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. 

     Some will argue that if God is all-powerful, He could have created any world He wished, He could have created a world without suffering. But are those two claims necessarily true? Is it really true that God could have created any world He wished? As it turns out, such a claim is actually false. While God is omnipotent, He is nevertheless bound by certain constraints of His own nature. As He is perfect in existence, He must therefore create that which is also perfect, He must create “the best possible world”, to do otherwise would be contrary to His nature. As a perfect being possessing free-will, He must likewise create creatures which are themselves perfect, possessing free-will. The creation of free-will creatures such as we are, is not the problem, our misuse of that freedom is. Moral evil occurs when free persons misuse their freedom in such a way that the content of their will and/or actions violates a moral standard.[6] As such it begs the question, what is that standard, and where did it come from? Furthermore, in response to the question of whether or not God could have created a world without suffering, the answer is, He did. Then the reply invariably comes that, we still see suffering in the world today, so no He did not. For those arguing this point you need to go back and read part one of this article. Analytic Philosopher Dr. Alvin Plantinga has declared,

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but he can't cause or determine them to only what is right. For if he does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil and he can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.[7]

      Also, God may have good reasons for allowing suffering, some greater good may be realized as a result. Without fail some will raise the question, “what possible good could come from allowing people to suffer”?  But we actually do this all the time, when we take our children to the dentist, or to the doctor to get a shot, there is a measure of suffering and fear, but good will come of it. This brings us to the Evidential Problem of Evil (EPE) and the atheistic argument that it is improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering. In “the Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access” or “theistic skepticism” is the notion that if there were some greater good that may be realized from God’s permittance of the existence of evil in the world, our cognitive limitations simply do not allow for us to know or comprehend fully His reasons for doing so.  Philosopher Dr. William Alston has stated,

each theodicy provided as a response to evil reveals 'limits to our cognitive powers, opportunities, and achievements in arguing that we are not in the right position to deny that God nave the kind of reason [some greater food] for various cases of suffering.'[8]

     For the atheist, to make the claim that no greater good could come from the allowance of evil and suffering is ignorant. As persons we are finite, contingent beings, limited by space, time, intellect, and insight. God is an infinite, necessary being, omniscient in existence. “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ​‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’” (Is.46:9b-10). Due to our own limitations as finite creatures we are, quite simply, in no way able to make so great a judgement on whether or not God could have good reasons for the permittance of suffering. Dr. Stephen Wykstra has argued that,

the gap between our intellect and God's is enormous. If there is any charity to be ascribed to a situation, it must be, of necessity, to the God whose intellectual powers have no rival. Thus, 'if we think carefully about the sort of being theism proposes for our belief, it is entirely expectable - given what we know of our cognitive limits - that the goods by virtue of which this Being allows known suffering should very often be beyond our ken.'[9]

     Does the atheist believe the existence of God is impossible or merely improbable or unlikely? And if so, improbable relative to what? What great enlightenment, what vast knowledge acquired, to lead one to such a conclusion? How many times have I come across this? The existence of evil and suffering in the world is often employed by atheists as a rescuing device when the argument starts to go sideways because the evidence for the existence of God is actually quite extensive. As such, they begin to realize that His existence is not impossible and therefore unlikely due to the degree of evil and suffering in the world. Craig has stated,

"I'm convinced that whatever improbability suffering may cast upon God's existence, it's outweighed by the arguments for the existence of God."[10]  

     Furthermore, if we are going to be entirely honest, much of the suffering that people do experience is the result of poor choices or decisions they make themselves. Or, as the result of evil acts of individuals, or groups, perpetrated on another. Should someone move to a region prone to flooding and mudslides and a family home is destroyed, or people have died as a result, God cannot be faulted. If someone should live in a region prone to earthquakes and annual forest fires during the summer months, such as in California, again God cannot be faulted when these things occur. If someone should reside in a region prone to drought and their crops fail, God cannot be held responsible. Should someone reside in the region of “tornado alley” and their home is destroyed by one, you cannot blame God for that. In each of those cases, people choose to live in those regions despite the possible risks. I do not like the cold and snow, but my wife and I chose to have our home built in a region characterized as the “snowbelt”. So, during the winter months we receive more snow in our region than the average, but that was our choice to build there. These are examples of what is referred to as natural evil.

     What about when people contract an illness? Certainly, some of the illnesses that people experience is again the result of choices we have made. Poor diet can lead to heart disease as well as certain cancers. Substance abuse like alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, legal or illegal can result in serious illness and/or death. Use of alcohol and/or tobacco can also lead to various forms of cancer. This type of evil is referred to as physical evil. Though some have encompassed physical evil with natural evil as being one and the same. Regardless, there is another aspect to this whole issue that runs at a deeper level. Making sense of these deep and often emotional experiences, this I will address in part three.     

    

 

---

[1] Geisler, Norman L.. If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think About the Question (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[2] Evans, Jeremy A.. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs (B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics) (p. 1). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[3] Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 2207-2208). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition

[4] Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotes are from The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).

[5] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/excerpts-from-mein-kampf

[6] Evans, Jeremy A.. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs (B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics) (p. 2). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[7] Ibid., 18. Quoting Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 30.

[8] Evans, Jeremy A.. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs (B&h Studies in Christian Apologetics) (pp. 28-29). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Quoting Alston, “Inductive Argument from Evil,” 59.

[9] Ibid., (p. 30). Quoting Stephen Wykstra, “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of Appearance,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (1984): 91.

[10] Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Kindle Locations 2639-2642). David C. Cook. Kindle Edition.

JESUS CHRIST & HIS BEING Did He Even Exist: Part Two

 

By Noel Coypel - http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Noel-Coypel/The-Resurrection-Of-Christ,-1700.html, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28274624

Internal Evidence:

The Gospel Account

3. The Objection of Unreliable Testimony

In dispute here is the belief that Mark’s attestation about Jesus of Nazareth is unreliable as he was not even present during Jesus’ public ministry. Former atheist Clive Staples Lewis, (a.k.a. C.S. Lewis), though born in Ireland, was a British scholar with degrees in English Literature from Oxford and Cambridge University. Upon his conversion to Christianity, he developed what became known as the “Trilemma” of Jesus Christ. He stated,

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God' [and thus a liar]. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. [1] (Emphasis added)

     The model of his trilemma follows a pattern of Jesus as either a liar, lunatic or Lord. However, biblical skeptic Bart Ehrman believes there is a fourth option, that the accounts of Jesus are merely “legend” and that He never actually claimed to be God. But on what lofty criteria does Ehrman base this claim? German Philologist Max Muller speculated that there was likely a period in which belief in the mythological was non-existent but became utilized as a language tool to explain the natural world by means of poetic rhetoric. When studying the relatedness existing between language and Greek mythology, he discovered that people had misappropriated poetic language of the natural world as narrative language regarding divine beings.[2]  In other words, Greek mythology was written in a poetic style language, but interpretation was misapplied as literal narrative. By contrast, any declarations of divinity in Jesus of Nazareth, either by himself or by others in the Greek of the New Testament, is historical narrative, not poetic and therefore such claims are not based on Greek mythology. His claims to deity are not legend as Ehrman supposes.   

     In Correspondence Theory propositions can be either true or false, if the proposition corresponds to reality (or to the facts), then the proposition is true, if it does not then it is false. Jesus was either telling us the truth about His claims to be God, or He wasn’t. So, this leaves us with three options, first, maybe Jesus didn’t know that he wasn’t telling the truth, in which case that would implicate him as a lunatic. Two, Jesus wasn’t telling the truth, and He knew He wasn’t telling the truth. This would implicate Him as a liar or a deceiver. Or three, Jesus was telling the truth, in which case He is Lord.

     The Old Testament testifies to the deity of Christ, (Ps. 2:7, 45:6-7, 110:1; Prov. 30:4; Is. 9:6, 63:7-9; Zech. 1:12, 12:10, 14:16). In the New Testament Jesus Himself testifies to His own deity, (Matt. 4:10, 16:17-18, 24:35; Mk. 2:5-7; Jn. 4:25-26, 5:23, 8:58, 12:48, 14:13, 14:61-62, 20:28). Then there are others throughout scripture who testify to the deity of Jesus Christ, (Matt. 3:16, 8:29, 16:16, 17:5; Lk. 1:32, 35, 2:11; Jn. 1:1, 8:58, 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:16-17, 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:3,5,6,8). Of course, there are those who object to the notion that Jesus ascribed to His own deity by citing Mark 10:18 as an example of His denial, “And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ’Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ’Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’” (Mark 10:17-18, ESV)[3] His statement here is not one of denial, but of inquiry. Jesus is attempting to determine if this young man recognizes the implications of his query. If only God is good in the truest sense of the word, and this young man truly believes Jesus is good, as he refers to Him, then Jesus is God, at least by implication. Still others will reference John 14:28 as an example of Jesus denial of deity. “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28, Emphasis added). Again, this is not a denial, God the Father is greater in office, not in nature to God the Son – Jesus. To believe otherwise borders on Arianism which was deemed heresy in A.D. 325 at the council of Nicaea and discussed in more detail in my article at https://theologyapologetic.blogspot.com/2024/05/of-anakin-skywalker-and-jesus-christ.html . Some have attempted to argue on an intellectual level that Jesus as God and man is a violation of the law of non-contraction; you cannot have “A” (Jesus as God) and not “A” (Jesus as man, therefore not God) in the same sense to the same extent. But Jesus can be both God and man at the same time because the sense is not the same, therefore there is no logical contradiction. It is possible for someone to be both a husband and a father at the same time, but not in the same sense. Jesus has both a divine and human nature, but they are not in the same sense.

     The basic presupposition of the higher critics like Bart Ehrman is that much of the material in the gospel accounts were contrived and never actually occurred. So, controversy stories between Jesus and the pharisees were concocted by the early church to address certain problem areas and then inserted back into the narratives pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. It was also argued that teaching passages like the Sermon on the Mount were merely innovations to provide instruction for new converts. Then, miracle narratives were believed to have been inserted simply as apologetic proofs. While these views were initially confined to the realm of academia, they have since made their way into the general population via advocates of the Jesus Seminar. But remember that in correspondence theory the propositions made can be either true or false and if those propositions correspond to the facts, then the propositions are true. The question then becomes do the propositions of the higher critics correspond to the facts or not?

     From the perspective of the historian, the interval of time from Jesus to the recording of the events of Mark’s gospel was so brief there would not have been adequate enough time to develop the so-called fictional manufacture of those events concerning Jesus as the Son of God and all that He said and did, His death and resurrection, if they were not actually true. Firstly, Titus Livius, more commonly known as Livy, was a Roman historian and penned a report of “the Law of the Twelve Tables” based on Roman civil law and Plutarch’s chronicling of the life of Alexander the Great, were both written 400 – 450+ years after the events took place. Secondly, despite the disparity in the time interval, they are still valued as reliable key sources. By contrast, the events of Mark’s gospel, whom liberal scholars argue is not truly reliable, has a time differential of just 25 – 30 years from the time of their occurring to the time their transcribing. When taking into account correspondence theory, that propositions are true if they correspond to the facts, or square with reality, then the composition of Mark’s gospel and the events it records should be considered even more reliable than what we have for Livy or Plutarch.

     In reply to the declarations of the higher critics regarding oral tradition. An ancient Egyptian artifact was discovered which indicated an inquiry by three men requesting to be accepted as deacons by the Coptic (Christian) church dated 3^rd – 4^th century. In order to be considered, those men had to memorize the gospel of John by the time of Pentecost (lit. the fiftieth day) and perform a recitation before the congregation. Furthermore, there is an account of a pastor requiring a deacon at the time of ordination to memorize 25 Psalms, two letters from Paul and a portion of any gospel. So, orality was standard practice. Very few people had access to scrolls in the ancient world to read. When letters were sent to the churches, the pastors of those churches would read them to the assembly, so parishioners had to commit to memory what they heard, or read if they were able to do so.

     The internal evidence provided by Mark’s gospel argues against his gospel existing as a document simply made up to portray a positive picture of someone who was not very glamorous in this life. The primary scriptural reference on this subject is found in John’s gospel, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26, Emphasis added) Verbs function as past, present, or future, active, or passive. Passive verbs are those in which the subject is the one being acted upon; active verbs are those in which the subject is the one performing the act. The Greek verb ὑπομιμνήσκω (hypomimnēskō) meaning “to remind” or bring to remembrance”, is a future tense, active verb. The subject and direct object of the verb is determined by the case endings. Case endings can be either nominative or accusative in the Greek. If the case ending is nominative, it is the subject of the verse, if the case ending is accusative then it is the direct object of the verse. The pronoun ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) translated “he” (lit. that one) has the nominative case ending indicating it as the subject of the verse. But who is “that one”? Locating an earlier nominative case ending we find it in the adjective, ἅγιος (hagios) translated “Holy”. It’s followed by the noun πνεῦμα (pneuma) translated “Spirit”, also nominative. The plural pronoun σύ (sy) translated “you”, speaking of the disciples, is accusative indicating it as the direct object of the verse. Therefore, this verse points to a time in the distant future in which the powers of recall, if you will, will be impressed upon hearts and minds of the disciples (direct object) via the working of the Holy Spirit (subject) when it came time for the writing of the gospel account.

     Remember that I mentioned earlier that higher critics like biblical skeptic Bart Ehrman believed that controversy stories between Jesus and the pharisees were concocted by the early church to address certain problem areas and then inserted back into the narratives pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. That is, Mark’s gospel does not simply contain what Jesus really said and did, rather it contains a lot of details regarding controversies that were occurring during the era between the events of the gospel and their actual recording of those events. But if that’s all true then we ought to find them in Mark’s gospel. The problem is that the proposition doesn’t square with the facts, the claim doesn’t correspond with reality, to what’s actually true. Firstly, there are many topics we know of which went unaddressed in the book of Acts and throughout Paul’s letters. Secondly, what few controversies existed, neither Paul nor Luke, in the books of Acts, employed any of the sayings of Jesus in order to resolve them. They were not referring back to what Jesus taught in order to settle those issues.  

     Furthermore, Mark’s gospel includes some rather uncomplimentary portrayals of Jesus. In doing so however, this indicates that Mark was willing to tell us the truth about Jesus. Why provide details that are unflattering if you’re trying to prop up some religious conviction? You wouldn’t, you would attempt to portray positive aspects, not seemingly negative ones. For example, Mark’s gospel states that John’s baptism was “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4) While v.9 states that, “Jesus…was baptized by John in the Jordan”. Why would a sinless saviour need to be baptized? Mark further indicates that Jesus couldn’t do any miracles in his hometown save for a few ill people (6:5). Matthew echoes Mark saying that Jesus did not do many miracles there (Matt. 13:58). Doubtless there are those who believe themselves to be pretty good people. But Mark records Jesus as saying, “No one is good except God alone” (10:18). If Mark really wanted to portray a complimentary picture of Jesus, he would not have included these details. But this indicates his willingness to give us the truth about Jesus. In 16:1-8 of Mark’s gospel he indicates that three women discovered the empty tomb. If Mark was making up this account, he would not have included women as the first witnesses to the resurrection. But again, Mark is willing to give us the truth. 

     Moreover, there exist a multiplicity of independent witnesses to the events recorded in Mark’s gospel, in addition to an early, high Christology. The claims of the higher critics are first, it took many years to develop that high Christology and two, those independent sources for the gospels had very different views of Jesus. However, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians not only shows a high Christology but also has this writing being dated at ca. A.D. 51 – 52. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3, Emphasis added). A view held by many scholars both liberal and conservative are that independent witnesses like John, Q, M, and L show evidence of early, high Christology without being in collaboration with one another. 90% of what is recorded in Mark is also in Matthew, often word-for-word in the Greek. Due to this observation, it is believed that Matthew utilized Mark as a source. 60% of what is in Mark’s gospel is also in Luke’s gospel. Again, often word-for-word in the Greek. It is therefore believed that Luke used Mark’s gospel as a source. This would also indicate that there is information in Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark and are unique to them. For that information not found in Mark, it is believed Matthew and Luke utilized an alternative source referred to as “Q” from the German word quella meaning “source”.  There are also some things that appear in Matthew that are not in Mark or Luke. In that case it is believed Matthew used a third source, “M”. Likewise, there are some things in Luke that do not appear in Matthew or Mark. In this case it is believed Luke used a third source, “L”.  

     While many scholars ascribe to “source theory” some do not. The reservation here is that it creates some confusion on where the work of the Holy Spirit comes in, which of course is a legitimate concern. In Independence Theory it is argued that the synoptic gospels originated independently without borrowing from one another. Rather, the similarity of the accounts is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit which is a valid argument. However, could it be that the similarity between the accounts is due to borrowing while the mystery sources of “Q”, “M” and “L” are actually the work of the Holy Spirit? If Mark’s gospel was the first written, as the majority of scholars believe, then the entirety of Mark’s gospel would include no other source than that of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, there were still multiple independent sources writing with no collaboration. Yet they all show evidence of a high Christology. Luke’s gospel makes reference to multiple accounts. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us” this suggests multiple sources were circulating. “Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us”. These sources based their accounts on eyewitness testimony and those involved in the ministry. “It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus”. Luke was not new to the subject and completed a detailed analysis of the information he had access to. “That you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Lk. 1:1-4, Emphasis added) This phrase shows Luke’s purpose in writing his account. For the purpose of surety and to preserve the oral accounts in a documented form.

     New Testament scholar John A.T. Robinson places the writing of Matthew’s gospel at A.D 40 – 60, Mark’s gospel at A.D. 45 – 60, Luke’s gospel at A.D. 57 – 60, and John’s gospel he places at A.D. 40 – 65. This would indicate a time differential of just 7 – 12 years between the crucifixion and composition of some of the gospels. (Geisler 2002, 474) Furthermore, Spanish paleographer Jose O’Callahan observed that some of manuscripts found at Qumran were of Mark’s gospel and of the passages discovered each was dated at A.D 50. The date of those manuscripts has never been disputed as it aligns with other ancient manuscripts discovered at Qumran. The use of Greek uncials in the writing indicates the work as an early first century document. Scholars estimate the crucifixion of Christ to be in the vicinity of A.D. 26 – 33.  If correct it would corroborate Robinson’s time differential to within just a few years. Noted Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White has indicated that,

Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth - making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.[4]    

     This is a further indication that even if there was an oral tradition to speak of, which some doubt due to the time frame, the gospel accounts cannot be legend as the evidence does not square with the facts or correspond to what’s actually true in reality. What the evidence shows is that the accounts given fall well within a single generation and therefore do not qualify as myth or legend because the time necessary to develop such, is simply not available. The NT account of the life of Jesus is factually true given the evidence. But there is more available. In part three, I will address the External Evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Those references which exist outside the biblical text.       

---

[1] C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015), 52.

[2] Winfried Corduan. In the Beginning God: A Fresh Look at the Case for Original Monotheism. (B&H Academic Publishing, 2013), 21-2.

[3] Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural references are from The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).

[4] A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 190. Quoted in Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 (Minneapolis MN: Harper Collins Press, 2002), 476. 

The Arian Controversy

 

Alexander, Bishop at Alexandria, maintained the Orthodox position of the church against the Arians. That the Son is de facto co-eternal with the Father. As all scientific theories must show themselves falsifiable to qualify as theories, so too does Athanasius provide a test of falsifiability with his claim that, “…our adversaries must first prove that the Son is not the Son, but a creature made of nothing. Then, when they have done this, they may clamour as they like of His not being before He began to exist.

     In a letter composed by Arius to Eusebius he states, “To the most desired Master, the faithful man of God, the Orthodox Eusebius, Arius, who is unjustly persecuted by Father Alexander, on account of the truth which conquereth all things, which truth thou also shieldeth…For the Bishop wastes and persecutes us exceedingly, and sets in motion every evil against us; so that he has driven us out of the city as godless men, because we do not agree with his assertion made in the public that God always existed [and that], the Son always existed, [and] that the Son has existed as long as the Father has, that the Son has [always] co-existed uncreatedly with God…”.

                                                 Chrystal, James. 1891. Authoritative Christianity. Vol. 1 pp. 178-9

     Arius was a student at Antioch before becoming Presbyter of the church at Alexandria, Egypt. In ca. 318 A.D. Arius entered into a contentious disagreement with the then Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, regarding the essence and eternality of the Son. Alexander defended the Orthodox position that the Son existed co-eternally with the Father, as such, His divinity would be axiomatic disqualifying Him as a creature. Arius believed that to say the Son was divine would be heresy, as such a belief would imply a polytheism. By contrast, Arius contended that the Son was a created being, created by God the Father, who subsequently created all other beings. Alexander believed that such a view would deny the deity of Christ which is supported by both scripture and by the common practice of the church in its worship. For such a view Arius was deposed and excommunicated, however, he was popular with many of the people, and enlisted the aid of certain Bishops. In 324 A.D. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, brought with him a letter from the emperor Constantine, urging Alexander and Arius to make amends. Hosius’ report back to Constantine strongly favored the position of Alexander while discrediting the views of Arius. Nevertheless, Hosius, it was thought, made the recommendation to Constantine that a council of Bishops should be called to address the matter. However, that point is contested by some church historians who report that Constantine claimed he had seen a vision instructing him to call a council together to discuss the matter. It should be noted, however, that Constantine cared little about the unity of the Trinity and more about the unity of his empire.

     The council of Nicaea was convened on May 20th 325 A.D. with a disputable number of 318 attendees. Many matters were discussed at the council, but chief among them was the Arian controversy. As Arius was only a Presbyter (elder) he was not permitted to sit in on the council. Therefore, Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, represented Arius at the council. Only a small number represented either side of the argument with the vast majority lamenting the whole issue that they felt could divide the church. The party then which rallied round Alexander in formal opposition to the Arians may be put down at over thirty. Between the convinced Arians and their reasoned opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, two hundred and more, nearly all from Syria and Asia Minor. Of all the Bishops who attended the council, the Arians could only rely on seventeen members who would support their cause.

     What changed for the conservative majority had to do with Eusebius’ defense of Arius and of Arianism. Upon hearing the argument of Eusebius, the council went into an uproar calling him a “blasphemer” and a “heretic.” To counter it, the council determined to enact a creed clarifying, in the strongest terms, the orthodox view of the church on the matter. The Creed of Nicaea read in part, We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. At the time, Athanasius held the office of Deacon but would later become Bishop and take up the fight of Alexander, after his passing, against the Arians and defending Nicaean orthodox doctrine. 

     The particular issue centered around the Arian motto “there was when He was not” referring to the Son.  Athanasius observed, as others also did, that Arius declined to include the noun “time” in his argument. “Why do you not speak out plainly, when you are speaking of time, and say, ‘There was a time when the Word was not’? No doubt the word ‘time’ is carefully avoided because you are afraid of alarming the minds of simple folk. But your meaning and opinion are too evident to be disguised or concealed. For time is really what you mean when you omit the word, and only say, ‘There was when,’ instead of ‘There was a time when He was not;’ and ‘He was not before He was begotten,’ instead of ‘before the time when He was begotten.’” Gregory of Nazianzus also addressed this same issue by contending that the Father and the Son are equally eternal in existence. How could the Son be the creator of time and also be subject to it?  The Arians held that, as He is a created being He would have to be subject to time just as we are.

     Furthermore, because those who are begotten into this world once did not exist, there must have been a point when the Son also did not exist. But Gregory argued that to make such a claim was to argue different realities. What the Arians were essentially doing was confusing contingent being with necessary being. Most things which exist do so contingently, that is, their existence is predicated on the existence of something or someone else. In other words, it is possible for them to not exist. Those things which exist necessarily have their existence in and of themselves, in other words, it is impossible for them not to exist. Shapes and numbers are said to exist necessarily, but shapes and numbers do not create anything. God the Father is said to exist in this fashion, necessarily, as does the Son. Therefore, the Son cannot be subject to time, and at the same time be ruler over it. Such a notion would violate the law of non-contradiction which states that you cannot not have A, and yet have A in the same sense to the same extent. The generation of the Son is not like that of a man, which requires an existence after that of the Father, but the Son of God must, as such, have been begotten of the Father from all eternity. As regards man’s nature it is impossible, as his nature is finite, but that his generation should be in time; but the nature of the Son of God, being infinite and eternal, His generation must, of necessity, be infinite and eternal too.

     Arius was employed as Professor of Exegesis, his contention that the Son was created was based on his exegetical work of scripture. He appealed to such passages as, Proverbs 8:22; Acts 2:36; Mark 13:32; John 14:28, 17:3; Colossians 1:15 et al, in support of his view. Arius fled to an erroneous LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22a and placed these words into Christ’s mouth, “The Lord made (κτίζω) me….”  Athanasius himself accepted the same Greek word and even applied it to Christ, but he took it in the sense of an appointing to a position. To him the verse is a declaration that the Father had “made” His Son the Head over all creation. Beale argues that the Hebrew word, קָנָה qânâ, means “possessed,” not “created.”  In actuality, how the word is translated is based on the context of the verse.  If the context suggests the constructing of some- thing, then “made” would be appropriate. If the context suggests something positional, such as proper ownership, appointment, or the establishment of some-thing, then “possessed” would be appropriate.

     To counter Arius, the Orthodox church appealed to such verses as, John 1:1; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:3, 13:8 et al. Regarding John 1:1, the verb “was”, not ‘came into existence,’ but was already in existence before the creation of the world. The generation of the Word or Son of God is thus thrown back into eternity. Thus, Paul calls Him (Col. 1:15) ‘the firstborn of every creature,’ or (more accurately translated) ‘begotten before all creation,’ like ‘begotten before all worlds’ in the Nicene creed. Comp. Heb. 1:8, 7:3; Rev. 1:8. On these passages is based the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. John says distinctly that the Son or Word was existing before time began, i.e. from all eternity. Furthermore, the verb eimi is a first-person singular which has been translated as “was,” though it actually means “be”, or “to be” as in “to exist”. Some translators have claimed that this verb is actually third person. In the Greek, the verb is in the present tense (Lit. “be”), and in the emphatic it is most frequently translated as “I Am” or “I exist.” “I” is a personal pronoun utilized as a first-person singular. Whether first person or third, the verb itself remains unchanged, it merely determines how the statement itself should be understood. So, although archē (beginning) can refer to time in this passage, it is actually utilized in reference to a person, “In the beginning,” “I Am”. 

     The case ending, in the Greek, helps us to determine what the subject or the object is in relation to the verb. The verb ἦν (“be” or “to be”) appears three times in this passage and has been translated as “was.” In English, the tense of the verb is past, but in the Greek the verb is always present tense. Regardless of whether ἦν is past or present tense, it still exists as a verb. Because the case ending of λόγος is nominative, this would indicate that the “word” is the subject while the case ending of θεόν is accusative, indicating that “God” is the direct object. The preposition πρὸς, translated “with” is a term of proximity. Literally understood as the Word being “toward” or “face to face” with God. The preposition qualifies the verb “was” (lit. “to be”) indicating that God the Son (ὁ λόγος) is “face to face” with God (πρὸς θεόν) the Father at the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ).

     Finally, various terms have been utilized by Historians and Theologians alike on this subject. Hypostasis (or Hypostatic Union), Consubstantiality, Homousius, and Homoiousius. One iota really does make all the difference. The Council at Nicaea settled on the term Homousius (“of the same nature”) to define their view on the essence of the Son to the Father. While the Arians preferred the term Homoiousius (“of a similar nature”). The difference in the spelling comes down to one letter in the Greek, the iota. Athanasius commented on what the word Homousius was intended to entail, “That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours… his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same”. This word, it was believed, was the best suited to confute the Arian heresy.

     The term “hypostasis” referred to the Son being of one “substance”, “nature” or “essence” with the Father. “Hypostatic Union” argued that in Christ He possessed two natures in one person, His humanity and His divinity making Him fully human, to pay the penalty for sin, and fully God to become the perfect sacrifice for sin, without mixture or confusion. The term “consubstantial” was an older term and was associated with the two previous, and which simply indicated that Jesus Christ is of the same nature as the Father, essentially the same as Homousius.  In conclusion, the two-word phrase “eternal generation” was derived from two words, “begotten” and “monogenes.”  Begotten, comes from the word gennao and means “to be born or conceived.”  The word monogenes comes from two words, mono meaning “one” or “only” and genos meaning, “one of a kind” or “unique.”  As such, monogenes consistently denotes “uniqueness,” even in post-apostolic literature. This same word (monogenes) occurs five times in scripture, and all in John’s gospel. Many conservative scholars believe that this word depicts the idea of “one and only” and nothing else and is more prevalent in newer translations. This would indicate that the church today recognizes what the church councils laid down several centuries ago, that the Son is eternal in existence, one in nature with the Father, fully human and fully divine. 

Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden, & Welsh, 1893

Beale, David. Historical Theology In-Depth, Vol. 1: Themes and Contexts of Doctrinal Development since the First Century. Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University Press, 2013

Percival, Henry R. Excursus on the Word Homousios in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900

Plummer, A. The Gospel according to St John, with Maps, Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902

Robertson, Archibald T. Prolegomena, in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Nicene Creed, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Translated by Henry R. Percival, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1900        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JESUS CHRIST AND HIS BEING Did He Even Exist

 

By Noel Coypel - http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Noel-Coypel/The-Resurrection-Of-Christ,-1700.html, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28274624

PART THREE (B)

 

External Evidence:

The Historical Account

2.  Semitic (Hebraic) Sources

The biblical text indicates that whether for good or evil, whatever comes, comes to the Jews first. “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. (Romans 2:9-10 ESV, Emphasis added).[1] Also, “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, [speaking of the Jews] to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness. (Acts 3:26, Emphasis added) Finally, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16, Emphasis Added) So what’s the point? Namely this, that if anyone would know something about whether Jesus existed or not, it would be the Jews, as He came to them first. Historically, He is believed to have been referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls by the Essenes.

     The Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin  shepherd near Qumran. During the 1950’s former catholic priest Andre Dupont-Sommer indicated that there was manuscript evidence that the “teacher of righteousness” was a reference to Jesus who had been “tortured, put to death, and reappeared”. Others have indicated that the “teacher of righteousness,” DuPont- Sommer refers to, was actually a leading member of the Essene community who was a picture of Jesus, not Jesus Himself. Still others believe that the reference to “the teacher of righteousness” is a reference to James (the just), who pastored the church at Jerusalem and who was Jesus’ half-brother.

     Robert Eisenman was the Religious Chair of California State University who, in 1991, made reference to the “Pierced Messiah Text” (fragment 4Q285) which contained five lines of Hebrew text in part of what is known as “The War Scroll”. Eisenman had enlisted the aid of Michael Wise from the University of Chicago. Between the two of them they determined that this Hebrew text made reference to a “pierced Messiah” corroborating the Christian claim to the crucified Messiah. Eisenman interpreted the verb WHMTW (whamitu) “’they will kill’ the Prince of the Congregation” as reference to the Messiah. Most scholars believed this to be a misinterpretation of the text. Scholars like Vermes of Oxford University argued that the Hebrew verb WHMTW (whemito) should be interpreted, “the Prince of the Congregation will kill him.” If the latter is true, “the Prince of the Congregation” cannot refer to Christ, or to James. Furthermore, the Essenes practiced a method of biblical interpretation known as Pesher which typified three hermeneutic approaches, textual emendation, atomization, and the synchronic method. In textual emendation, they would select a known alternate textual reading of the phrase in question and offer the interpretation. Lacking an existent variant, Qumran interpreters were not averse to creating one that suited their interpretive purposes.[2] With atomization, the text in question is divided into separate phrases and interpreted in isolation without regard for context. With the synchronic method, prophetic texts are given a more contemporaneous interpretation relative to their own day or the immediate future so that they can relate them to their own circumstances. As such, the MSS discovered at Qumran do not seem to say anything definitive about Jesus.

     The most infamous reference to Jesus comes from the Jewish Historian, Joseph Ben Mattathias, more commonly known by his Latin name, Flavius Josephus. Josephus actually writes about the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist in his Antiquities, (Ant. 18.116-19). Even though his account varies with the biblical account, scholars regard it as authentic. Josephus also recounts (Ant. 20.200) when the high priest Ananus wanted to have James put to death by stoning; Josephus refers to James as “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.”  Again, few scholars question the genuineness of Josephus’ remark regarding James. However, his remark concerning Jesus of Nazareth has come into dispute. In point of fact, Josephus’ remark about Christ was believed to be an authentic account up until the rise of historical criticism in the 17^th century believed to have originated with Baruch Spinoza and becoming a popular form of methodology for studying the origin of ancient texts during the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3)

     The question then becomes, why are the previous references to John the Baptist and James considered authentic and the third regarding Jesus is not? After all, in A.D. 360 Ambrose, or perhaps Hegesippus wrote,

Josephus…was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth. Because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer, but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever, and unwilling this should be true, has not denied it to be so. (Ambrose [Hegesippus], Josephus: The Complete Works, App. Dis.1., 979).

     With respect to various scholarly views regarding Josephus’ remark about Jesus, the prevailing views are three. First, some scholars argue that the entire remark is dubious and was never uttered by Josephus. Secondly, other scholars believe that the remark, in its entirety, is authentic. Finally, the largest group of scholars believe that while the central tenets of his remark are authentic, nevertheless there are indications of Christian insertions to the text. So, if we were to rewrite the Testimonium Flavianum with the existing distinctions it would resemble the following,

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. 

     Those statements indicated in the bold are considered by the majority of scholars, to be later interpolations to the text. If we remove those interpolations, we still discover that 1. Jesus existed, 2. He was considered wise, 3. He performed miracles, 4. He spoke truthfully, 5. He persuaded many Jews and gentiles to follow him, 6. He was condemned by Pilate to be crucified, 7. His followers were not deterred from following him despite it.

Clauses expressed independently:

1. “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man.”

2. “If it be lawful to call him a man.”

3. “For he was a doer of wonderful works.”

4. “A teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.”

5. “He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.”

6. “He was [the] Christ.”

7. ‘And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst

us, had condemned him to the cross.”

8. “Those that loved him at the first did not forsake him."

9. “For he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine

 prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things

 concerning him.”

10. “And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct

 at this day.”

     With respect to the first clause, “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,” most scholars do not believe this indicates an interpolation, it is seen as merely complimentary. Josephus says the same about Solomon (Ant. 8.2.7. S53) and Daniel (Ant. 10.11.2. S237), and something similar about John the Baptizer, whom he calls “a good man” (Ant. 18.5.2. S166-9).[3]      

     The second clause “if it be lawful to call him a man”, was believed to be an interpolation, but was considered authentic by Henry St. John Thackeray, whose study of Josephus argued that the clause appeared to bear all the hallmarks of in-sincerity, and therefore he did not consider it to be a fabrication inserted into the text. Furthermore, the clause which follows, (3) “for he was a doer of wonderful works” was not believed by scholars to be a Christian interpolation. Scholars believe that the phrase could simply be indicating good conduct or righteous acts such as seems to be denoted in the Arabic translation of Josephus by Agapius in the 10^th century. The problem as I see it is that what these “scholars” have seemingly failed to recognize is that the preposition in the third clause “for” acts as a conjunction between the second clause, “if it be lawful to call him a man” and the third clause, “he was a doer of wonderful works.” The term “for” is a functional preposition which modifies the clause that precedes it. The dilemma this creates is that if the second clause “if it be lawful to call him a man” is an interpolation, and the third clause “for he was a doer of wonderful works” is not believed to be an interpolation, then they have effectively invoked a contradiction and as a result are stuck with either having to remove both clauses or retaining both, they cannot simply remove or retain one as both are connected by the conjunction.       

     There has been little discussion on whether the fourth clause, “a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure” was an interpolation or not. The majority of scholars do not believe it to be an insertion. I agree, but what’s interesting is that the translator of Josephus, William Whiston, A.M., employes the em dash between the two clauses, the former, “he was a doer of wonderful works” and the latter “a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.” An em dash is basically a conjunction with emphasis. However, some who have quoted Josephus testimonium concerning Christ have employed the standard conjunction “and” with no apparent emphasis. The reason for this is that the latter is viewed as a dependent clause, it therefore cannot stand on its own, but not all scholars agree; some have not added any conjunction at all, they simply affirm this clause is a statement which stands on its own. So written as, “For he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.” The clause was therefore viewed as independent, therefore no conjunction was deemed necessary. What would all this indicate? If the translation of the third clause, “he was a doer of wonderful works” and fourth clause, “a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure” includes either an em dash or conjunction is a correct translation, this will affect whether or not the second clause “if it be lawful to call him a man” is actually and interpolation or not. I have already indicated in the above paragraph how the third clause could indicate that the second clause is not an interpolation. The fourth clause substantiates that the third clause is not an interpolation so long as it is understood as a dependent clause, as long as the em dash or standard conjunction are maintained. But if the fourth clause is independent so that it can stand on its own, then the possibility exists that the third clause “he was a doer of wonderful works” could be an interpolation. Moreover, some have argued that the adjective “pleasure” in the fourth clause was typically avoided by Christian authors as it was often associated with hedonistic practice, therefore the fourth clause, “a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure” was not viewed as a Christian interpolation.  

     With respect to the fifth clause, “He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles”, the strong belief here among scholars is that this cannot be a Christian interpolation as a Christian copyist would have known that Jesus did not win over many gentiles during His earthly ministry; the vast majority of His followers were Jewish. In later years during the time of Josephus yes, the Christian gentile population was growing, therefore such a statement is merely indicative of an observation made by Josephus during his own time, not during the time of Christ.

     There has been some debate on whether the sixth clause in the Testimonium, “He was [the] Christ,” was truly an interpolation or not. In referring to Jesus as “Christ” Josephus was not confessing Jesus was the Christ, only that He was called “Christ” (ὁ [ho, who λεγόμενος [legomenos, is called] Χριστός [christos, Christ]) which was a Messianic title used in the prophetic literature of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and who the Christians confessed and identified in Jesus of Nazareth. So, Josephus may have simply been making a matter-of-fact statement, that He was “called Christ,” not that he believed Him to be so. Origen of Alexandria had stated, “And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great”.[4] (Emphasis Added)

     With respect to the seventh clause, “And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross” there is little to no disagreement here that this is merely a historical account of what took place and the verdict given regarding His punishment. It is not a Christian interpolation.

     There is assurity among scholars that the eighth clause, “Those that loved him at the first did not forsake him” is not an interpolation as the statement shows a distinctive Josephian style. It implies that the love of Jesus’ followers for him, not Jesus’ resurrection appearances to them, was the basis of Christianity’s continuance. This statement does not explicitly endorse the love of Christians for their Christ, as a Christian interpolator might be prone to do.[5]   

     As for the nineth clause in the Testimonium, it can be divided into two parts, 9a. “For he appeared to them alive again the third day” and 9b. “as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” The eighth clause is not believed to be an interpolation while the nineth clause is. The problem this creates is that the term “for” in 9a. is a functional, co-ordinating conjunction, a preposition which modifies the clause that precedes it. A co-ordinating conjunction such as “for” joins like with like or as in this case two dependent clauses, “Those that loved him at the first did not forsake him” (clause eight) and “For he appeared to them alive again the third day” (clause 9a). The problem is if the eighth clause is not believed to be an interpolation while the first part of the ninth one (9a) is, then you have a contradiction as the two clauses are linked by the co-ordinating conjunction “for.” Therefore, either the eighth clause and the first part of the ninth clause of the Testimonium are interpolations or neither of them are.

     “As,” like “so” and “for,” is believed to be a co-ordinating conjunction, it therefore has the same function as “for” as previously noted. Why is that important, because the second part of the ninth clause (9b) commences with it, “as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” Therefore, 9b also cannot be an interpolation.

Finally, in the concluding statement, “And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” is believed to be authentic by a majority of scholars on the bases that a Christian interpolation would not have employed the noun “tribe” in reference to the Christian population.

The Talmud

In conclusion, just a brief comment on views of Jesus in the Talmud.

     In Judaism there are two basic forms of writing, the Halakah, which means, “rule to go by” and the Haggadah meaning, “a telling.” The former deals with deducing principles and regulations for proper conduct from the Old Testament. The latter, draws from the Old Testament stories and proverbs to edify its readers. Of these two, three writings emerge, the Mishnah, the Abot, meaning “the Fathers,” and the Midrashim, “to search.” The Mishnah and the Abot fall into the category of the Halakah. The Midrashim falls primarily into the category of Haggadah. The Gemara is the ancient commentary of the Mishnah and the two together form the Talmud. One ancient document records,

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before

 the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going

 forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed

 Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let

 him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was

 brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the

 Passover![6]

     A few things to make note of here. First, the document mentions hanging, but this is merely a variant of crucifixion. “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree (emphasis added). Acts 5:30 This document also mentions that He was to be stoned, which is in keeping with Jewish law. But because the Romans became involved, He was crucified. Habermas mentions that there is another early account in the Talmud which mentions five of Jesus disciples also stood with Him and were convicted and executed. However, there is nothing actually documented about their deaths. Other mentions are made concerning Jesus in the Talmud, but they are later and of questionable reliability.

*In Part Three “C” I will address Gentile (non-Jewish) sources for Jesus’ existence.

---

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotes are from The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).

[2] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN: 2004), 28.

[3] Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), 89.

[4] “Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” in The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. John Patrick, vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), 424.

[5] Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), 90.

[6] The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281. Quoted by, Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO.: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 203.