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.