Problems Regarding Josephus’ Alleged Testimony of The Historicity of Jesus

The alleged testimony of the 1st CE Jewish Historian Josephus as to the historicity of Jesus, actually only amounts to two isolated references: Antiquities of The Jews; Books 18 & Book 20.

Now, the fact that Josephus only refers twice to the celebrated and socially influential 1st CE Nazarene of Biblical fame is quite frankly; a curiosity in and of itself. Even more so; that the verbose and prolific writer Josephus would only devote a single paragraph in one context; and a mere phrase in another, to constitute the entire corpus of his commentary on such a notable 1st Century celebrity as Jesus of Nazareth; is quite frankly, inconceivable.

Additionally, the content of the two texts is questionable as to the matter of credibility and authenticity. A critical review of the two texts themselves tends to discredit the notion that either was actually authored by Josephus; thus leading to questions as to who did indeed write the texts, and why the texts would have been subsequently inserted into the writings of the famed Jewish Historian, in the first place.

As to the questionable content of the Book 18 reference; several items require explanation. Namely:

 

1. Why would a Jewish historian refer to Jesus as “the Christ”?

2. Why would a Jewish historian refer to the teaching of Jesus as “the truth”?

3. Why would a Jewish historian record the resurrection of Jesus as an actual event?

4. Why would a Jewish historian claim that Jesus fulfilled Hebrew prophecies?

It simply does not seem reasonable to regard the paragraph from Book 18 (which interrupts the train of thought immediately prior to and subsequently following) as the testimony of a Jewish historian. This paragraph goes beyond the basic function of recording history; and rather serves so as to make a case for Christian doctrine itself. That a Jewish historian would be the facilitator of such is so far fetched, as to be hardly believable. This paragraph clearly evidences itself as being of Christian origins, and since no one referenced such until Eusebius did so in the 4th CE; it seems reasonable to theorize that the text in question is a Christian interpolation, cleverly inserted into the original text sometime between the era of Josephus and that of Eusebius.

As to the Book 20 reference, I shall give such the attention deserving of its inexplicable presence in the text, and of its equally unexplained brevity. The notion that the normally verbose Josephus would refer to a Jesus, “who was called Christ”. and then just pass over that profound statement with no further clarification or qualification; simply seems too far fetched to regard these as the Hebrew historian’s actual words. In further consideration of the fact that later in the same paragraph, “another” Jesus is referenced, who likely was the Jesus of whom Josephus originally wrote; then I am subsequently lead to conclude that this brief “testimony” to the historical Jesus is yet another Christian interpolation into the original text; in yet another desperate effort to give credence to the myth that there ever was a flesh and blood Jesus in the first place.

Conclusion:

In consideration of the questionable integrity of the only two known references of the 1st CE Jewish Historian Josephus to an historical Jesus; then I am lead to conclude that Josephus seems to have known nothing of the Jesus of biblical fame. And in further consideration of the fact that Josephus was one of the most knowledgeable historians of 1st CE Judea; then I personally find the notion that such a person as an historical Jesus could have lived the life that he allegedly lived; in the time that he allegedly lived; and in the place that he allegedly lived, without the knowledge of the historian Josephus, to be simply preposterous and unbelievable.

The reader may draw their own conclusions, but I conclude that Josephus is by no means a credible source of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and actually rather that the 1st CE Jewish Historian seems a noteworthy source for the theory that there likely was no historical biblical Jesus in the first place.

On The Dating of the Biblical Acts of the Apostles

My general thoughts on the dating of Acts relate to the contrast of “Acts Paul” to “Galatians Paul”:

1. Galatians Paul is a cocky, uncompromising, self acclaimed, independent agent of God. Whereas; Acts Paul is a conciliatory, compromising Church Missionary. The contrast of “Acts Paul” to “Galatians Paul” is so extreme as to almost indicate two different people.

2. Personally, I don’t think either “Acts Paul” or “Galatians Paul” is a historical character.

3. I take “Galatians Paul” to be a creation of either Marcion or someone from the Marcion movement. I base that upon Tertullian’s acknowledgement that Marcion “discovered Galatians”; and that no one even seems to have known of Paul’s letters until Marcion came on the scene in the 2nd CE.

4. “Paul” was likewise “persona non grata” in the eyes of the Church, in fact I believe it was also Tertullian who referred to Paul as “the Apostle of the heretics” because “his writings” were so popular among the Gnostic/Marcion/Valentinus crowd (it is possible that the “early” Pauline letters may have been written by early Gnostic Christians)

5. Hence, I believe that “Acts Paul” was a later creation of the up and coming Orthodox/Catholic Church; who utilized Acts to “recreate” Paul as a conciliatory, Church missionary type of character; in order to affirm orthodoxy and the authority of the Catholic Church as the preferred form of Christianity (in contrast to the earlier Gnostic Christianity; which was much more informal; and less authoritative).

6. The key clue to my theory is that Acts Paul is conciliatory with Peter and the Church; whereas Galatians Paul was contentious with Peter; and held no degree of respect whatsoever for the church leaders.

Conclusion:

So far then as concerns the dating of Acts; if my theory is correct, then Acts is a later work than Galatians. As I regard Galatians as a Marcionite work (approximately 140’s); then Acts would naturally be a mid to late 2nd CE work. These dates of course; pending the validity of my theory. Which is admittedly; just a theory. But my theory seems consistent with known history; namely the transformation of Paul from “the Apostle of the heretics” in the mid 2nd CE, into the good graces of the Catholic Church by the latter 2nd CE to early 3rd CE. My theory then that Acts Paul was a Church endorsed recreation of Galatians Paul into a conciliatory Church Missionary figure would then at least seem consistent with known 2nd CE early Church history. Such as it it; this is my working theory regarding the dating of Acts; or at least such is my working theory at the moment.

General Thoughts on the History of Christianity

My general thoughts relative to Christianity:

1. Lack of credible evidence for the theory of the supernatural leads me to deny the existence of any supernatural deity.

2. Living in a universe which is seemingly indifferent to suffering leads me to deny the theory of a benevolent personal God.

3. Lack of credible evidence for the historicity of Jesus leads me to seriously doubt the theory of an historic Jesus.

4. Lack of credible evidence for 1st CE Christianity leads me to doubt the historicity of such.

5. Traces of evidence of 2nd CE authorship within NT Pauline letters; coupled with lack of credible evidence for 1st CE Christianity has lead me to the working theory that Christianity originated in the 2nd CE; rather than the more commonly accepted 1st CE (admittedly a theory; yet one based upon credible evidence pending discovery of future documents).

6. The contrast of the Paul of Acts as compared to the Paul of Galatians seems inconsistent with regards to an actual person, yet does seem consistent with known developments within 2nd CE Christian history.

7. The OT depicts Jehovah as a God whose vile and violent standards were so consistent with the patriarchy, misogyny, and homophobia of his chosen people; that I am lead to the theory that his worshipers were in fact his Creators.

8. The OT seems to me to be biased history and ancient urban mythology of the Hebrew people.

9. The more universal scope of the NT seems consistent with the late 1st CE and 2nd CE migration of the Hebrew people into the Roman world; in particularly in the light of the post Jewish diaspora of 135CE.

10. Christian ethics and ideology as taught in the NT; seem consistent with Greco-Roman thinking of the 1BCE-2nd CE era. (Cicero; Epictetus; Marcus Aurelius as examples)

Summary: Christianity seems to me to have been an urban religion which developed during the 2nd CE as a process of the assimilation of the displaced Hebrew people into the Greco-Roman culture of that era.

The Canonical Book of Acts: Second Century Church Propaganda

It is my personal opinion, that Acts is a mid to late 2nd Century work of the early Catholic Church (or an apologist thereof), written to market orthodoxy as the preferred form of Christianity. My reasons for so thinking: The forced effort to make compatriots out of Peter and Paul; even making sure they each do same miracles; the transformation of Paul from the cocky, contentious, and uncompromising independent agent of God (cf Galatians) into the conciliatory, dependent, compromising Church missionary Paul of Acts. It also seems that the complete diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem; which occurred in 135CE; is written into Acts as the fictional diaspora of the Christians from the same city (cf Acts 8), thus dating the writing of Acts as at least early to mid 2nd CE.

Based upon these basic observations I regard Acts as a fictional 2nd CE account designed to market orthodoxy and the institutional church ritualism as the preferred form of Christianity.

On The Historical Jesus

I believe the question of the historicity of Jesus is impossible to know for certain. My personal research has lead me to conclude that the Jesuses (plural) of the New Testament were both 2nd CE phenomena: The docetic Jesus of the early Christians (who the early Catholic Church called “heretics” while history labels them “gnostics”; I merely call them the early Christians); and the flesh and blood Jesus which the early Catholic Church created in their effort to import all the Jesus movements of the 2nd CE under the one umbrella of institutional dogma and “orthodoxy”. Now, I regard each of the aforementioned Jesuses as equally fictional.

As to whether these 2nd CE concepts of “Jesus” were based upon some actual flesh and blood Jesus who actually lived in an earlier era:

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine.

Thoughts On The Authorship Of Galatians

For a number of reasons, I am of the opinion that the New Testament book known as the Epistle to the Galatians was either written by the second century Christian Marcion, or perhaps by one of his fellowship.

Firstly, because Marcion is the one who “discovered” the letter itself. Secondly, because Galatians is addressed to a region of Turkey which is very close to Marcion’s place of origin. Thirdly, because the content of Galatians presents the ideology of Marcion. Fourthly, because the issues addressed within Galatians not only are presented from the Marcionite perspective, but also because the topics so referenced were hot topics at the very time that Marcion introduced that which he had “discovered”. Any one of these items could naturally be marked up to coincidence, but to ignore the collective indicators of second century ideology present within the document itself is to me unreasonable. That said, I regard Galatians as the work of Marcion or one of his entourage.

The antinomian spirit of the composition is representative of Marcionite ideology. Specifically, the mid second century debate as to the merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision is well represented, with the writer adamantly opposing those of “the circumcision party” (2:3-4,11-12,14,16; 5:2,11-12). In similar fashion, the discussion of whether one’s relationship to God was to be sought through obedience to Law or by faith was both a contemporary debate between Marcion and the Roman Church, and was likewise thoroughly discussed in the text (2:16,21; 3:2,11,26). Like the text, Marcion regarded the Law of Moses as a curse of a lesser deity than God the Father (3:13,19; 4:8). The concept of being delivered from the evils of this world (1:4), and being redeemed from the Law (4:5), by being adopted by God the Father (4:6), were fundamental to Marcionite ideology. Marcion regarded the flesh as evil (1:4; 5:17-21); and salvation as a spiritual experience (2:20; 3:2,5; 5:17).

In short, every major topic of discussion in the letter of Galatians was a fundamental doctrine of Marcion, who “discovered” such. I find the parallels too consistent to be coincidental; hence I regard Marcion or one of his fellowship as the author of Galatians.

Dating Early Christian Writings

My sincere appreciation to skillful blogger of the suppository depository for this excellent article on the topic of “Early Christian Writings”:

the suppository depository

I’ve been very silent these past few months, getting assignments out and the like. I will start uploading new posts very soon.

In the meantime, here’s a link to a very good and accessible post on the Westar Institute’s site: How to date early Christian writing:

View original post

The Apostle Paul and Saul-Paul in The Struggle for Primitive Orthodoxy

Early Christian writings, including the canonical New Testament, record both the writings and the ministry of the man most commonly referred to as the Apostle Paul.  Personally, I have no idea whether such a person actually existed, but the literary Paul is well recorded and therefore undeniable.  However;  it is worthy of note that literary Paul is an anomaly in that there seem to be two separate individuals who share the same identity in the New Testament.  The one was defiant against traditionalism, and contentious with those who would burden Christians with obligations of obedience to the law.  The other was a compliant spokesperson for hierarchy, structure, and order, and was a key component in the rise and development of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Apostle Paul was introduced in Galatians as a self confident independent agent of God who claimed to have received his knowledge directly from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:1,12). He was uncompromising to the extent of contentiousness, and he refused to yield even momentary submission to anyone who would burden believers with obligations of obedience to the law of Moses, regardless of the reputation or spiritual status of the one so teaching (Galatians 2:4-6,11-13).  Saul-Paul on the other hand, was introduced in Acts as one who was led by his hand into town after falling off his horse, who subsequently was told by others what he had to do (Acts 9:4-6), who had to have his life saved more than once by quick thinking brethren (Acts 9:23-26,29-30), and who had to have a representative speak on his behalf in order to secure the approval of the Apostles (Acts 9:27). Furthermore, from that time forward Saul-Paul was so accountable to and conciliatory towards the Church leadership that he did in fact compromise more than once by engaging in acts of the very law which the Apostle Paul regarded as a curse ordained by angels (Galatians 3:13,19). The Apostle Paul would never have funded and participated in a sacrifice of the law simply because the Church leaders told him to do so (Acts 21:23-26), for he chided the church in no uncertain terms for such compromises (Galatians 4:10-11). The Apostle Paul would never have had someone circumcised just to appease the Jews (Acts 16:3), for as far as he was concerned, Jews who imposed the practice of circumcision on others could just go mutilate themselves (Galatians 5:11)!

Suffice it to say, although the Apostle Paul and Saul-Paul share a common identity in Early Christian literature, by no means are they the same individual.

So why the distinction between the two?

Principally, because the writer of Acts (commonly referred to as “Luke”) and the writers of Galatians (traditionally accepted as Paul) seem to have had different agendas. However; regardless of the separate and somewhat contrasting agendas, both Acts and Galatians share common ground in that each was likely written in the second century. Galatians, which introduces Paul as an Apostle, not of man but of God, was itself introduced to the Christian world by Marcion in the mid second century. The story is that Marcion had “discovered” this letter which was allegedly written by Paul over 80 years previously.  Until that time, there is no evidence that anyone was even aware of any “Pauline epistles”.  The fact that such a key piece of literature remained “undiscovered” for such a long time, and then when produced just happened to address issues which were contemporary to the mid second century seems too coincidental to be credible in my opinion.  Furthermore, since  Marcion’s own teachings are so thoroughly presented in the Galatian “letter”, then my  mind is open to other possibilities as to its actual authorship.

The antinomian spirit (Galatians 3:11,13,19; 4:9-10; 5:1-4); accompanied by comparisons of the flesh and the spirit (3:2, 5:18-24); the discussion regarding circumcision (2:7; 5:2,6); the theme of deliverance from this present evil world (1:3-4); and redemption from the curse of the law by being adopted by God the Father (4:1-6; cf 1:3-4, 3:13; 4:3); are all teachings of Marcionite and Gnostic Christianity.  The fact that Paul is presented in such a cocky light further makes me wonder whether such is more likely someone who idolized Paul doing the writing, rather than Paul himself (similar scenario in 1 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 11).  That said, such considerations lead me to note that since the content of Galatians addresses second century issues, and appears to have been written by an individual who was so taken with the person of Paul as to assume his literary identity in order to promote his own doctrines, that Galatians may very well have been written by Marcion himself, if not someone of his entourage. It is no wonder then that Paul was described by the early church as “the apostle of the heretics” since his popularity among early Gnostics such as Marcion and Valentinus might stem from the fact that the Apostle Paul was in fact a literary creation based upon their ideology.

So what then of Saul-Paul?  Of whose ideology was he created?

Saul-Paul was a key literary character within the canonical Acts, a document whose agenda appears to have been to market the unification strategy of the early Catholic Church. The unification movement of the latter second century, which successfully lead to the orthodox Catholic Church, was an effort by the legalistic element of early Christianity to conquer the free thinkers and Gnostics who claimed a direct relationship with God instead of subjugating themselves to the authority of the hierarchy. The tales of Saul-Paul not only equipped the orthodox church with a fellow compatriot to Saint Peter in their quest for total dominion over Christianity, but likewise undermined the Gnostics by annexing “the apostle of the heretics” and making him their poster boy for compliance with and obedience to the institutional church. The strategy was brilliant, and the effect absolutely stunning. In perhaps the greatest literary coup of all time the Catholic Church successfully stole the identity of the false identity which the Gnostics themselves seem to have assumed, and the result was that the Catholic Church won the battle for orthodoxy in the process. For from the latter second century on the Catholics were “the orthodoxy” and the Gnostics were “the heretics”.

Lukan Acts employs a three fold strategy in transforming “the Apostle of the heretics” into a compliant Catholic spokesperson.  Firstly, he brings the Epistle Paul down off his high horse with regards to his relationship to the other Apostles, but in particularly with regards to Peter.  Then, he relegates Saul-Paul to a church delivery boy and errand runner.  Finally, Saul-Paul is made out to be the chief spokesman on behalf of orthodox Catholicism, by preaching the basic teachings  which would in time become regarded as “orthodox doctrine”. For whereas the Apostle Paul had proudly identified himself as an Apostle (Galatians 1:1; Romans 1:1), and claimed to be equal to the chiefest Apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 9:1); Lukan Acts sees to it that Saul-Paul did not even qualify as an Apostle by transforming such into an office, and creating prerequisites which would disqualify Saul-Paul even as a viable candidate (Acts 1:21-22). Furthermore, although Acts seems to give Paul equal footing with Peter in the area of miraculous accomplishments, in that each of them raises others from the dead (Acts 9:36-40; 20:9-12), heals paralytics (Acts 3:1-8; 14:8-10); heals by their very bodily presence (Acts 5:15; 19:11-12), miraculously escapes prison (Acts 12:6-10; 16:25-26), and successfully rebukes magicians (Acts 8:18-23; 13:6-11), in reality Saul-Paul is subjugated to a lower class of miracle performing missionary in that Peter is allowed to preach a message by direct revelation from God (Acts 11:1-18); whereas the directive revealed to Saul-Paul from heaven was to do as he was told (Acts 9:4-6).  And indeed from that moment forward, doing what he was told by others was precisely what Saul-Paul was all about.  He was led and brought (Acts 9:8,27), brought and sent (Acts 9:30; 11:29-30), chosen and sent (Acts 15:22,30), and quite frankly was told what to do (Acts 21:23-24,26).  By the time Lukan Acts was done, Saul-Paul was the chief spokesman on behalf of the orthodox Catholic doctrine of the second century, under the watchful eye of his Catholic compatriot Barnabas (Acts 14:12,14).  Saul-Paul preached the bodily resurrection of the dead (Acts 13:31,37, 17:3,31-32) instead of the message of spiritual resurrection common to most Gnostics (1 Corinthians 15:50). He encouraged martyrdom (Acts 14:22), a practice which the institutional church assured would procure instantaneous salvation, unlike Gnostic Christians who denied the glory of such as silly superstition based upon the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.  And perhaps most importantly, he assisted in the institution of an authoritative hierarchy in each and every church (Acts 14:23), thus promoting the orthodox church doctrine that worship could not be conducted without an authorized Bishop, again unlike Gnostic Christians who were known to allow anyone, regardless of gender, to speak or distribute the sacraments.

Indeed, Saul-Paul was the literary creation of Lukan Acts, whose utility on behalf of the traditional minded element of second century Christianity was an effectual aid in both unifying such under the umbrella of the institutional church, and at the same time in undermining Gnostic Christianity. For the successful unification project gave the repute of credibility and orthodoxy to hierarchy, structure, and order; which in time would lead to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. For from the end of the second century on Catholic doctrine came to be regarded as “orthodoxy”; whereas Gnostic ideology came to be thought of as mere “heresy”. This victory in the struggle for orthodoxy not only gave the early Catholic Church the rule of the day, but likewise gave them the means, opportunity, and motive to write Gnosticism out of the history of early Christianity.  For even to this day, few and far between are the Christians who know of the time when Christian literature and ideology were neither classified as “orthodox” or “heresy”, and when such topics as the nature of God and the notion of the resurrection were open to debate, discussion, and personal judgment. In fact, the establishment of the institutional Church and the eventual canonizing of certain select Old Christian writings as “sacred” have since displaced the concept of free thinking among Christianity, and replaced such with the notion that the dependency upon an institutional Church as a necessary medium between person and God is in fact orthodox Christian doctrine. To such circumstances then is owed the unification of early Christianity under the authority and auspices of the Catholic Church, and the effect of the tales of Saul-Paul in effecting and maintaining that statusquo is as effective now as much as ever.

As I stated from the outset, I am not certain whether there was a historical Paul.  If there was such a person, his life’s story is insignificant in the light of his literary alter egos; the Apostle Paul (“the apostle of the heretics) and Saul-Paul (“the adjunct of the Catholics”).  For the two literary Paul’s, who shared one identity in the form of two fictitious individuals, are representative of the struggle for the claim to orthodoxy, which was second century Christianity.

 

Dave Henderson
Denison, Texas

(NOTE: Credit Robert M Price’s Introduction of “The Amazing Colossal Apostle” for the outline of the miracles common to Peter and Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. DLH)

The New Testament: An Anachronism of An Allegorical Nature

Introduction: In my judgment, a reading of the New Testament as a literal historical narrative is problematic in more ways than one.  Firstly, parts of the narrative itself are clearly mythical.  For, just as certainly as magical trees and talking serpents are mythical literature of the Old Testament (OT), so likewise virgin births and resurrected corpses are even as evidently mythological tales of the New Testament (NT) narrative as well. Secondly, a reading of the NT as a historical narrative would indicate a chronology of events which is quite frankly too compressed to be regarded as credible.  For the 35 year span between the baptism of Jesus and the death of the Apostle Paul simply does not allow sufficient time for one nationality’s ongoing Independent Movement to not only transform into a spiritual, mystical movement; but to likewise go on to develop  into a worldwide ecclesiastical Church with an organized hierarchy and an acclaimed history which boasts of traditions; yet such would have to have been the case if in fact the NT is a historical narrative.  And thirdly, the internal indicators of 2nd CE penmanship of the NT are just too evident throughout the narrative itself to be simply disregarded without serious review and consideration.  With regards to these matters, it is my personal opinion that to assume the NT to be a historical 1st CE document is to mistake both the nature of the narrative and the era of its authorship.  These matters I gladly discuss further:

1.  As to the nature of the writings of the New Testament, do not the very tales within reveal a mythical element to the entire narrative?  In fact, do not both Testaments of the Bible clearly utilize the style of myth in telling their respective stories?  Are not magical trees and talking animals surely fantasy?  And are not virgin births and resurrected corpses surely not likewise?  In what other form of literature, save for the Bible itself, would a rational individual interpret such as literal truths?  How can anyone who would reject such concepts in any other form of literature apply a literal interpretation when fantasy and myth are employed in the Biblical writings?  Is not the dying resurrected god tale featuring Jesus of Nazareth as the star character surely as mythical by its very nature, as are the dying god myths which featured Dionysus of Greece, Osiris of Egypt, and Baal of Canaan?  Indeed, I would suggest that not only do the very writings of the New Testament clearly employ the utility of myth to narrate its tales, but that likewise the exercise of such was done so in the parlance of the times, thus revealing such to simply be cultural mythology in a world of mythological communication.

2.  To further assess the nature of the writings of the New Testament, note that the narrative itself claims that certain events took place within a chronology which is simply too compressed to be credible.  For if the New Testament is historical, then during the mere 35 year period between the Baptism of Jesus and the death of the Apostle Paul; and all at the same time of an ongoing national Jewish independence movement; suddenly thousands of Jews are to have given up on the quest for national independence in order to focus their hopes for eternal life upon a spiritual relationship with a publicly slain yet subsequently resurrected; once incarnate yet now celestial savior who reigns in Heaven instead of in Jerusalem (Acts 1:6-8; 2:22-41); and having done so then subsequently an up and coming spiritual movement took hold in the Holy City which became so popular that the ever-growing following became the prime object of persecution by certain ever zealous faithful Jews to such an extent, that the entire band of believers had to flee from Jerusalem for fear of their lives; except for the Apostles who remained behind to serve as HQ for dispersed believers (Acts 8:1-4); and that then this diaspora ultimately lead to the internationalizing of the Jewish Christian movement by the early 60’s CE (Col 1:6,23); so that by the time the movement’s earthly pacesetter and primary pundit Paul was executed in Rome in 64 CE, that the internationalized Jewish Christian movement had developed into a worldwide Christian Church; with established congregations in a number of major cities which had operated long enough to have organized an ecclesiastical hierarchy (Acts 13:1ff; 20:17,28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3) and to have maintained an established history of  known traditions (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:16).  All this in a mere 35 years.

3.  In my mind, the mythical nature of the New Testament narrative, coupled with a chronology of claimed occurrences which is simply too compressed to be regarded as credible, would seem to indicate at least an element of the allegorical, so written as an anachronism.  Now, inasmuch as the interpretation of an allegory is admittedly somewhat subjective, then my thoughts as to the meaning of the Jesus myth I will suspend for the moment beyond such as are directly related to the discussion at hand. For since my thoughts with regards to such matters are assessed in the light of internal evidence within the New Testament that the writings themselves are 2nd CE works, then I move to address that particular theory more thoroughly before commenting further as to my personal interpretation of the anachronistic content itself.

4.  Now, the notion that even a portion of the New Testament was written in the 2nd CE clearly flies in the face of orthodoxy.  In fact, those who have been schooled as to the conventional ideology that the New Testament is a 1st CE historical narrative must surely regard the very notion of 2nd CE authorship of the same as a “new teaching” and a “strange doctrine”.   Now, I will grant that such is an unorthodox concept, yet it is not as though my theory of 2nd CE authorship of the New Testament is original, for such is certainly not the case.

For as early as the late 18th CE the English Clergyman Edward Evanson laid the foundation for later theories of 2nd CE authorship of the New Testament with his writings and talks whereby he challenged the authenticity of the better portion of the writings therein.  A few decades later, the German Rationalist Bruno Baur actually lost his job as a Theological instructor in 1842 for contesting the authenticity of the entire lot of the so called Pauline Epistles, and likewise alluded to indications of 2nd CE authorship of at the very least, the letters to the Corinthians.  After Baur there arose several 19th CE and one particular 20th CE Dutch Ministers who likewise dared to challenge the authenticity of the complete Pauline Corpus ; and furthermore theorized that the New Testament itself is primarily the product of 2nd CE penmanship.  Among the “Dutch Radicals” as they came to to known were the 19th CE scholars A.D. Loman, W.C. van Manen, and the 20th CE scholar  G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga; who himself was a student of van Manen’s.  The death of the latter in 1955 left the Dutch Radicals’ theories somewhat unrepresented in the Netherlands since that time, yet contemporary scholars such as American Robert M. Price and the Berlin Clergyman Hermann Detering, among others, continue the legacy of the theory of 2nd CE origins of Christianity which I now maintain myself.

It is my opinion that the arguments set forth by these scholars both past and present, cry out as voices in the wilderness as they seek adequate answers to reasonable inquiries as to both the chronology and content of the New Testament which seem to indicate 2nd CE origins of the same. Unfortunately the world of biblical scholarship has for the most part responded to such argumentation with mere wave of the hand disregard for the 2nd CE theory, all the while maintaining the status quo of relying upon the standard dating and authorship for most of the New Testament letters as set forth by the early Catholic Church.  Yet  the questions and observations of radical skepticism remains on the table so to speak, and such are the basis for my own theories regarding 2nd CE authorship of at least portions of the New Testament.

And so although my case on behalf of 2nd CE origins of New Testament Christianity no doubt pales in comparison to those set forth by the aforementioned biblical scholars , I nonetheless appeal to the reader to consider “what this babbler has to say” as I offer my personal insight into the theory of 2nd CE authorship of at least portions of the New Testament.

5.  The NT presupposes a complete diaspora of the Jews,  which seems to have been cleverly written into the narrative as the aforementioned dispersion of early Christians from the Jerusalem, allegedly due to the overbearing persecution of overzealous Jews (Acts 8:1-4).  Now, so far as concerns a violent diaspora, the facts of such a historical occurrence are both well represented and yet at the same time significantly rewritten into this same text.  For in the NT narrative the chronology of such a diaspora is misplaced,  the cause is misrepresented, and the victims of such are misidentified.   For history does indeed record a violent dispersion from Jerusalem, but those who were completely driven out were all Jews, and not merely Jewish Christians (cf 1 Thess 2;15) as described in the NT.  Furthermore, those who drove them out were actually the Roman lead coalition army who crushed the Simon Bar Kochba uprising of 132-135 CE, rather than zealous Jews themselves as is recorded in Acts 8.  Now, there were indeed a  number of Messianic uprisings during the 130 year-long Jewish Independent Movement, however Bar Kochba’s; due to the extremeness of the crushing defeat, was the last and final. And there had likewise been other persecutions and dispersions in the aftermath of various such uprisings. Yet, never before had there been a diaspora so complete or a defeat so crushing in the history of the Jews during the days of the Roman Empire to compare to the crushing defeat of the Bar Kochba forces and the complete diaspora of every single Jew which ensued.  The aftermath of the defeat of Bar Kochba’s forces included the execution of Bar Kochba and key members of the Sanhedrin, including several Jewish scholars, the ceremonial burning of the Hebrew sacred scrolls, the erection of two Pagan statues, including one where the Temple had once stood (which I believe is referenced in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14; this case is persuasively argued by Hermann Detering in a piece entitled “The Synoptic Apolcalypse (Mark 13): A Document From The Time of Bar Kochba”; which appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of the Journal of Higher Criticism; cf pp 169-170); and the renaming of Judea to Syria Palaestina as an effort to completely rid the region of any influence or connection to Judaism whatsoever.  The Jewish death toll during the subjugation of the Bar Kochba revolt numbered over half a million,  while other survivors were captured and sold into Egyptian slavery (a sad irony).  Then, to ensure a complete diaspora, it was illegal after 135 CE for a Jew to come within a mile of the razed and subsequently rebuilt Jerusalem.  The diaspora of 135 CE compared to none other before or since, and that event marks the early distinction of the Christian from the Jewish religion.  So then, since the complete dispersion of the Christians as recorded in Acts 8 cannot be verified by any historical accounts, coupled with the fact that such is descriptive of the historical diaspora of every single Jew from the Holy City after 135 CE, then I am inclined to conclude that the former does in fact refer to the latter.  That being the case, then it seems evident to me that the author of Acts 8 wrote after that historical national catastrophe of the Jews, which would seem to date the Acts narrative to at the least the mid 2nd CE.

6. The crushing defeat of the Bar Kochba forces in 135 CE subsequently lead to the complete dispersion of  what remained of local Jews into an extremely diversified religious world.  For the 2nd CE was indeed an era of doctrinal diversity as to the genre of Christian ideology, and was a time of theological evolution inasmuch as there was no orthodoxy as of yet to shape or mold the discussions. This is not to say that there was a lack of resistance from the more establishment type thinkers among the various branches of Christianity regarding the diverse and sundry notions which were being bandied about regarding Jesus. In fact, there were a number of discussions and debates during the mid to later 2nd CE regarding such matters as: a) Whether the Savior God was the god of the Jews, or whether salvation was to be sought separate from Jehovah (the 2nd CE Roman teacher Cerdo and later Marcion were among several advocates of the notion that there were two distinct Gods, one Creator god who was either just and/or evil; and another God, a loving Father type of deity who sent His Son Jesus to redeem people from the god of the Jews; cf Rom 8:14-23; Gal 4:4-6); and b) Whether salvation was to be sought by personal faith, inner knowledge, or works of the law (Gal 3; Rom 7:12; 8:1-8; James 2:10; 1 John 5:11-13); and c) Whether Jesus was incarnate flesh or spirit (Rom 8:3; Phil 2:7-8; John 1: 14); and d) As to the role of women in the Churches and in general (Acts 21:9; Rom 16:1; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 1 Cor 14:34); and e) As to the authority and rule of Church leaders (Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1-3).  The thinking of the 2nd CE Gnostic element of Christianity seems to be very well represented in the NT; for John 1 is text book Valentinian thinking (he being a 2nd CE teacher; cf the similar themes of John 1 to “The Gospel of Truth”; believed to have been written by Valentinus himself, if not a disciple of his theories); whereas Galatians 3 represents Marcionite doctrine so well that some scholars believe him to be the actual author of the text himself, if not the entire letter (Van Manen and Price; cf Price’s “The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search For The Historical Paul; p. 411).  And so it is the case that in the context of the post 135 CE diaspora,  the embryonic years of the Christian religion unfolded into an era of several decades of discussions and debates throughout the Near East and Asia Minor over a divergence of doctrines relative to the Jesus narrative.

7.  Now, this is not to say that an element of Christianity did not already exist, for there is evidence of such in Rome and throughout the region, which was most likely a development resulting from a strong Jewish presence there since even before the 1st CE.  Yet the core doctrines of orthodoxy had not as yet become regarded as such, for quite frankly the institutional Church was itself only a work in development during this time.  In fact, the eventual formation of the early Orthodox Church as an ecclesiastical structure, governed by a recognized hierarchy is owed in many ways to the aforementioned incessant ideological struggles. For the legalistic element, who regarded a strict obedience to the Law and allegiance to the authority of leadership within local churches as paramount and obligatory, eventually organized a hierarchy of authority, documented Creeds and statements of faith, and even developed a Canon of “authorized scriptures”, in order to neutralize these discussions and to stabilize the effects of these divergent beliefs, by incorporating a core base of doctrines under the umbrella of one Catholic faith. In essence, the argument can be made that the Orthodox Church owes its organized hierarchy and its canonized scriptures to the influence of the unorthodox and ever assertive “heretics” of the early Christian movement of the mid to latter 2nd CE.  For regardless of the aforementioned compressed chronology of the accepted norm, there is little evidence of any Orthodox church organized and established to such an extent as to be governed by an ecclesiastical hierarchy (Acts 13:1ff; 20:17,28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3) until the latter 2nd CE.  In fact the divergent doctrines, doctrinal disputes, and subsequent development of an organized church governed by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons were all matters which are well documented as being matters relative to the 2nd CE; while the claims that such were set in the 1st CE are simply lacking for substantial evidence in order to confirm.

8.  There is yet another indicator of 2nd CE authorship of the New Testament which seems worthy of note and discussion.  The New Testament narrative relates numerous passages which reference a general persecution of Christians; and a willingness of early believers to endure the same (2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet 4:14-16); Rom 8:35; 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 12:10; Gal 6:12; 1  Thessalonians 2:14). The alleged degree of suffering and persecution of early Christians so referenced in these passages was relatively unknown until the mid to latter 2nd CE.  In fact, to my knowledge there was no known general persecution of Christians until the mid to late 2nd CE, with the exception of three isolated references to alleged case specific suffering of Christians: a) There was a persecution of Christians in Jerusalem during the Bar Kochba rule, which was case specific to the war effort.  Bar Kochba, who fancied himself the Messiah, was a radical ruler who demanded loyalty.  In this setting (132-135 CE) he is alleged to have persecuted Jewish Christians for disloyalty to the Messianic cause.  b) There is a single reference written in the early 2nd CE by Roman historian Tacitus of alleged persecution of Christians in Rome in the 60’s CE in the aftermath of the infamous fire of 64CE.  The reference has been contested on the grounds of internal issues (questions of identity of the followers of Chrestus; questionable that a Roman historian would have referred to “the Christ”; and the possibility that the text is tainted with an interpolation) and likewise on the grounds of external issues ; (namely that this text was not cited by early Church leaders; hence, possibly a later writing completely, or at the least an interpolated text with reference to the followers of Chrestus).  c)  There is the 110 CE letter of Pliny the Procounsel of Bithynia to Trajan the Emperor, requesting guidance with reference to how to handle some troublemakers who he identifies as “Christiani”, who refused to bow down to the image of  the Emperor. Precisely who the “Christiani” are is a matter of debate, as there is the possibility that they were the worshipers of the god Serapis (there is no reference to Jesus in this letter).  The response of Trajan also specifically states that the “Christiani” are not to be hunted down,  but are to be punished if arrested and are known to be of that following.

Each of these three alleged scenarios are case specific, and except for the persecution of Christians at the hands of Bar Kochba’s troops in 130’s, are questionable as to scope and severity; and have likewise been contested as to the validity of the allegations themselves.  There are though indeed claims of a general persecution of Christians which are more suited to the NT passages mentioned above, but such allegations are in the 160’s and later. In fact, most claims of a general persecution of Christians; which were actually based on charges of Atheism (because they refused to offer sacrifice to the local gods), are mostly in the mid 2nd CE and later.  There are of course claims of a general persecution during the years that Marcus Aurelius was Emperor (161-180 CE), yet even these allegations seem to have been of local specific scenarios, for there is no evidence of a national Law to persecute, nor is it known whether Aurelius was even aware of these alleged cases of persecution against Christians. Interestingly enough, there is likewise evidence of Christian obsession with martyrdom during the 170’s and later.  Among the reasons for this fad like fetish with death is that the Orthodox church taught that martyrdom was a form of baptism; thereby cleansing the sinner of personal sins at the very point of death.  This seemingly granted anyone who died as a Martyr a guaranteed salvation, hence there were those who actually sought out and requested death at the hands of the Romans with such hopes in mind.  Now, regardless of whether these alleged instances of persecution against Christians were proactively enforced by the civil authorities, or whether such were sought by those who wished to die as martyrs, either way the era of the wide-spread and general persecution of Christians (2 Tim 3:12) was a mid to late 2nd CE scenario, rather than that of the 1st CE as the traditional Christian timeline would lead us to believe.

Conclusion:  As I have indicated from the outset, I am of the opinion that to assume the New Testament to be a 1st CE production based upon literal historical events is to assume too much too early.  In fact, as I have suggested, the claims that a world-wide Christian church, which was governed by an organized hierarchy, and which had been in operation long enough to have an acclaimed history, had developed out of a movement which successfully transformed an element of the radical Jewish Independence Movement of the 1st CE into a mystical movement seeking a celestial savior instead of an earthly Messiah, and did so in a mere 35 years; is a claim which is based upon a chronology which is simply too compressed to be regarded as credible.  And so as also noted, the internal evidence indicates that the New Testament was actually a later production than is presented within the narrative itself. For the assumed complete diaspora of the Jews, the divergence of doctrines discussed and debated, the alleged development of a fully organized, governed, and structured Orthodox Church, and the degree of persecution mentioned throughout the New Testament, are all too consistent with the history of 2nd CE Christianity to be disregarded as merely coincidental.

Having then considered the problems relative to reading the NT as a literal historical narrative; namely a chronology which would then be too compressed to be regarded as credible; and furthermore having noted various traces of 2nd CE indicators within the narrative itself; then I am lead to conclude that the NT narrative is in fact an editorial anachronism, in that 2nd CE writings were compiled and composed at a later time, so as to indicate a 1st CE historical narrative; for reasons relative to the situations and circumstances of the creative composers themselves.

Such as they are, these are my thoughts relative to the nature of the New Testament narrative, and as to the actual era of its authorship.

Dave Henderson

Henderson Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics being the science of interpretation, and myself being Henderson, and this blog being dedicated to my hermeneutics of the Bible, then I shall endeavor to explain my personal method of biblical interpretation:

HENDERSON HERMENEUTICS; which is admittedly exercised from a skeptic’s perspective:

1. My general goal is to assume nothing, and to analyze everything.

2. I do not accept the traditional authors and/or the traditional dates of the writings at face value.

3. It is my thought that an internal investigation of the texts themselves should provide adequate insight as to details regarding the writer (see 6 below) and the time frame of the writing itself.

3. I also attempt to factor external evidence into my thinking when assessing such. For example, I like to know when the text under analysis is first known to have been referenced by an early church teacher or a critic. This is most helpful when attempting to form a theory as to the dating of any given writing.

4. Analysis of this sort has lead me to observe traces of 2nd Century thinking in New Testament writings, both gospels and epistles. In fact, I am fast developing an opinion that perhaps much of the New Testament writings were written during the 2nd Century, possibly even after 135 CE. Thus, I regard many NT writings to be anachronistic in that the writer seems to write of past events and settings as being contemporary to the writer.

5. Furthermore, certain observations lead me to view many letters as being patchwork products which are made by the effort of combining fragments of smaller writings in order to produce larger writings (Galatians, Romans, and the Corinthian letters come to mind. More on this in future posts)

6. Finally, my observations are leading me to conclude that there were several different ideologies represented in the Canonized scriptures. Thus, I am less likely to attempt to identify an author by name (see 2 above); whereas I am more likely to attempt to identify the general ideology being represented and presented by the same (Gnostic, Marcionite, Valentinian, Hebraic, Catholic, etc).

(Note: Credit the writings of the Dutch Scholars, especially W.C. Van Manen, A.D. Loman, and G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga; along with contemporary theologians Robert M. Price and Herman Deterring for insight and exegesis relative to the methodology as described in 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above)

7. I attempt to employ a “which is more likely” approach when assessing a text. For example, which is more likely: That God actually said “Let there be light”, and then there actually was light, OR that someone merely wrote that God said “Let there be light”, and then allegedly there was light. Or which is more likely: That Isaiah called Cyrus the king of Persia by name hundreds of years before he lived, or that the writer of Isaiah 45:1-4 was a later writer who knew after the fact that Cyrus actually was the king of Persia.

(Note: Credit the contemporary Berlin Minister Hermann Deterring for introducing me to the “which is more likely” methodology)

CONCLUSION:

My studies and analysis of biblical writings are a work in progress.

My opinions and assessments are likewise a development in the making, and likely always will be.

Regardless of your perspective, you are more than welcome and specifically invited to follow this; my bible studies blog, which is admittedly a skeptic’s perspective; and thus perhaps to some a fool’s endeavor!

Either way, thank you for taking the time to read.

Dave Henderson
Denison, Texas
askepticsbiblestudies@gmail.com