Eusebius - Tumblr Posts
Was James the Brother of Jesus?
Eli Kittim (Author)
——-
Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.
This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”
In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.
——-
The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.
——-
Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.
——-
Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.
——-
According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.
Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are
Here are the proofs:
Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.
We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).
In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.
Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).
Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.
In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.
——-
External Evidence
Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.
Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.
Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.
——-
Summary
Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.
——-
The Seven Churches of Revelation: History or Prophecy?
By Published Author Eli Kittim
Preachers whose sermons are on the 7 churches of Revelation assume that the context is of historical significance and therefore usually focus on the moral implications, but they completely miss the most important prophetic elements of the text, such as the background setting (i.e. the place where the narrative takes place), the significant players that are mentioned, the temporal sequence of events, as well as the apocalyptic symbolism that weaves everything together into a unity.
Unlike the typical “a-church-after-God’s-heart” homily that you’ve often heard regarding the 7 so-called historical churches in Revelation, I would like to draw your attention instead to the unique setting of the Book, to its arrangement of scenery: its mise-en-scène, if you will! Viewing the first chapters of Revelation from this angle will allow us to gain a new perspective on the Seven Churches of Asia and free our hermeneutic from the typical proleptic and anachronistic interpretations that have been irresponsibly applied to the text time and time again.
From beginning to end, Revelation claims to be an exclusively prophetic Book (cf. Rev. 1.1, 3, 19; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)! If we treat it as a Book on history, however, we will inevitably distort its futurist message, which undeniably comprises apocalyptic visions, and ultimately contradict its authorial intention. Yet that is precisely how the first 3 chapters of Revelation have been traditionally read, that is, as contemporaneous events and happenings during the time of John in the first century CE. But perhaps we are not reading them correctly. I’m suggesting a mode of interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Book, namely, that the first three chapters of Revelation have a prophetic role to play whose sole purpose is to provide an outline of how the end-times begin!
Bearing this in mind, let us now see how the Apocalypse of John is actually presented to the reader. The Book opens with a declaration to promulgate “the words of the prophecy” (Rev. 1.3 NRSV):
“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the
words of the prophecy, and blessed are
those who hear and who keep what is
written in it; for the time is near.”
And so from the very outset this Book claims to contain a prophecy. It does not seem to be interested in conveying history. Next, we are told that John, who is the recipient of this future revelation, is also, by way of the Spirit, an *eschatological* partaker in the coming tribulation or persecution of Christianity in Asia Minor (i.e. Modern-day Turkey), and that he is figuratively situated on the Greek island of Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” Given that John claims to be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day [i.e. on the day of the Lord]” (Rev. 1.9-11), his mise-en-scène (i.e. the arrangement or setting of scenery) seems to have prophetic rather than historical value:
“I, John, your brother who share with you in
Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and
the patient endurance, was on the island
called Patmos because of the word of God
and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the
spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind
me a loud voice like a trumpet saying,
‘Write in a book what you see and send it to
the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna,
to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to
Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’ “
Thus, John is basically instructed to write 7 letters to the Christian Churches that are facing persecution in Turkey! If we temporarily suspend Eusebius’ “Church History” in which John is portrayed as an exile——the accuracy of which has often been called into question——we can begin to view the *eschatological* scenery that the Book of Revelation is actually depicting. If in fact the Book of Revelation is an overlay of the end-time events described also in Mt. 24, then it must naturally start with “the beginning of the birth pangs” (Mt. 24.8) that lead up to the “great suffering” (Mt. 24.21), otherwise known as the Great Tribulation. And indeed it does! Moreover, we find Turkey also playing a prominent role in Ezekiel 38, the famous chapter on end-times prophecy!
The Ezekiel 38 War
Ezekiel 38 names a confederacy of nations that will invade many countries, including Israel, in the last days. Although there have been debates among scholars as to the precise location of some of these ancient regions, most of them have been identified with a certain degree of confidence. Of the several regions mentioned by Ezekiel, who is putting pen to parchment in the 6th century BCE, the majority of them were located in what we today would call Turkey. For example, Beth-Togarmah and Gomer are viewed as ancient regions in Asia Minor [Turkey].
Although there are admittedly conflicting reports with scholars being divided on the issue of the origins of Meshech and Tubal (as to whether they represent Russia or Turkey), the following list shows some of the historical research supporting a Turkish connection:
1. The Oxford Bible Atlas says of Meshech and Tubal that they’re “regions in Asia Minor [Turkey].”
2. The IVP Bible Background Commentary lists Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah as “sections or peoples in Asia Minor” [Turkey].
3. The New Bible Dictionary places both Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.
4. Ralph Alexander, Old Testament scholar, in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary says, “Meshech and Tubal refer to areas in eastern Turkey, southwest of Russia and northwest of Iran.”
5. Edwin Yamauchi, scholar and historian places both Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.
6. Mark Hitchcock, pastor, author and well-known prophecy teacher, places Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.
7. Tim Lahaye and Ed Hindson, in their Encyclopedia of Popular Bible Prophecies, also place both Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.
8. Ron Rhodes, author and teacher in his book, Northern Storm Rising, also places Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.
9. Chuck Missler in his article, Meshech-Tubal Tensions with Syria also places Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.
*Source Credit: Dalton Thomas
Therefore, of the eight regions mentioned in Ezek. 38.1-6, at least four of them are identified as parts of modern-day Turkey. And since this invasion is set to begin “in the latter years” (Ezek. 38.8), it demonstrates that Turkey will figure prominently in this campaign!
The other thing to notice, here, is that almost all the nations mentioned in Ezek. 38 were once part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. For instance, Cush comprised the area of modern-day Ethiopia or Sudan, just south of Egypt, Put was where modern Libya and Algeria (N. Africa) are located, while Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah, and Meshech were apparently in Asia Minor. And parts of Persia were also under Ottoman rule during the Ottoman-Persian wars. All in all, Ezek. 38 sounds like it’s describing a resurgence of the Ottoman Empire, consisting of an Islamic coalition of nations! Similarly, in Revelation 12.1, the woman who gives birth to the messiah at the end of days is said to have “the moon under her feet.” That is the symbol of Islam. Therefore, if a revived Ottoman Empire is indicated in the Gog-Magog War, which leads up to the battle of Armageddon, then this means that Turkey must also be either explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the Book of Revelation! Hence the Turkish persecution of the 7 churches in the Book of Revelation!
The Prophecies of Paisios of Mount Athos
A number of extra-biblical prophecies have been attributed to Elder Paisios (1924–1994), a highly respected Greek Eastern-Orthodox ascetic from Mount Athos. They include the prediction that a future geopolitical war between Greece and Turkey will spill over and draw Russia into the conflict against Turkey, which will be the latter’s ultimate demise. Similarly, there’s a prophecy attributed to the 18th century Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, aka the Vilna Gaon, in which he purportedly said that Messiah will come right after “the Russians have reached the city of Constantinople [Istanbul].” In fact, Elder Paisios said that the trigger point of Greek-Turkish hostilities will be reached when Greece extends its territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles. Recently, Greece and Turkey are at variance with each other over the demarcation of sea borders and the right to explore hydrocarbon resources in the Mediterranean. There have been both air and naval incidents, tensions and hostilities have flared up and are steadily increasing since August of 2020. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the incumbent President of Turkey, in violation of international law continues to employ intimidation tactics and war-narratives in an effort to reinforce his expansionist plans. It’s no secret that he wants to rebuild the Ottoman Empire and restore its former glory. He also aspires to become the Caliph, the supreme ruler of the Muslim world! However, France has come to Greece’s aid with naval support in a countermeasure to push Erdoğan back. This situation is a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, Devlet Bahçeli, the Head of the Turkish National Movement Party, recently declared that war with Greece is “just a matter of time.” More to the point, Greece recently extended its territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles in the Ionian Sea, sending a message to Turkey that it will soon do the same in the Aegean! According to Elder Paisios, this will be the trigger point of the conflict. At present, the situation in Turkey is very tense as Erdoğan has *persecuted* and shut down *Christian churches* while reverting Hagia Sophia to a mosque. That’s equivalent to the Israelis turning the Al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish Synagogue. It’s deplorable and provocative! It has caught the attention of the international community that has unanimously condemned this action. At any rate, this current standoff might explode into a full-blown war. According to some experts, this armed conflict over oil and gas reserves seems unavoidable! And that’s precisely where the Book of Revelation begins.
The Book of Revelation Opens with the Greek Islands, on the one hand, and the Persecuted Churches in Turkey, on the other!
In Revelation 17.9-10, John mentions the Empire that exists *contemporaneously* with the prophetic events of Revelation as they are temporally unfolding:
“This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the
seven heads are seven mountains on which
the woman is seated; also, they are seven
kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living,
and the other has not yet come; and when
he comes, he must remain only a little while.”
As regards the 8 empires of Revelation 17, John says that “five have fallen.” According to Dan. 2, that would be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and Byzantium. The One that “Is Living” at present is the Sixth One, which presumably persecutes the Christian Churches of Anatolia in the opening chapters of Revelation, namely, the Ottoman Empire of the Turks, which defeated the Byzantines in 1453. Incidentally, we know that John is not referring to the 1st century CE because the empire that “is living” at that time is the 4th (Rome), according to Daniel 2.40-42; 7.7. By contrast, Rev. 17.10 is referring to the prophesied 6th Empire as the “one [that] is still reigning” (WNT)! It could also be said that the Ottoman Empire actually triggered the End-Times (cf. Mt. 24.6-9) at the outset of the 20th century through the unprecedented Christian Persecutions & Genocides of Anatolia (Greek/Armenian), just prior to WWI and WWII, the brunt of which lasted for approximately 7 years, thus symbolizing the Tribulation of the 7 Christian Churches of Asia Minor that usher in the end of days in the Book of Revelation. So, in John’s own words, the empire that “is living” *now* (contemporaneously with the 7 churches) is the 6th empire: the Ottoman Empire. Why would John mention that in chapter 17 and verse 10? It’s obviously not Rome, as most people think. Rome was the 4th empire. It’s probably because the end-times will commence with a conflict pertaining to Asia Minor (Turkey). Think about it. Revelation is inundated with future predictions. Why would it spend its first 3 chapters on past or current events if it is said to be “The revelation of Jesus Christ” that contains information of “what must soon take place” (Rev. 1.1)?
Moreover, John tells us categorically and unequivocally that he was on the island of Patmos “in the spirit” (Rev. 1.10), NOT in the flesh! It appears, then, that John is on Patmos figuratively, not literally, in order to pronounce the testimony, which “is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19.10d). What is more, John doesn’t tell us that he’s in exile. That is an extra-biblical interpretation. It’s a speculation that is not found in the text. This tradition, which says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities, is not credible because, although banishment was a common form of punishment by Rome for various offenses, nevertheless Tertullian’s account (in The Prescription of Heretics) is flavored with myth and legend given that he claims that John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. This obviously fits in the category of urban legends. Nor does the author of Revelation say that he is on the island of Patmos physically. Rather, he says that he is there “in the spirit” in order to give us the scenery, so to speak, the prophetic background of how the tribulation begins “on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10) or on the day of the Lord!
Conclusion
Revelation 1.3 explicitly states that this is an exclusively prophetic Book which is not concerned with past history. The prophetic implications are further reinforced by its author, John, who claims to be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day [i.e. on the day of the Lord]” (Rev. 1.9-11). Thus, the mise-en-scène (i.e. the arrangement or setting of scenery) is itself part of the apocalyptic vision, which implicates Turkey in end-time events related to the Great Tribulation! Turkey is also implicated in the Ezekiel 38 War, which sets the stage for Armageddon, the final great battle between good and evil!
Furthermore, the prophecies of Paisios of Mount Athos center around an end-times conflict in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey, Biblically represented by Patmos and Asia Minor respectively, “where Satan's throne is” said to be located (Rev. 2.13). Moreover, what lends considerable support to my exegesis is the fact that John connects the timeline of the 7 churches account not with the Roman Empire (the 4th) but rather with the Ottoman Empire (the 6th), which is said to be currently reigning in Rev. 17.10. For example, we know that John is not referring to the 1st century CE because the empire that “is living” at that time is the 4th [Rome]. By contrast, Rev. 17.10 is explicitly referring to the so-called current empire that “is living” and reigning at that time, after “five have [already] fallen.” That would be the prophesied 6th empire, namely, the Ottoman Empire, the continuation of which is modern Turkey! Also, chapters 2 and 3 employ tribulation language, or the language of crisis. Given that chapters 2 and 3 reference the tribulation (θλῖψιν 2:9), and since authority and rule (2:26-27) and white garments (3:4-5) are promised therein to those who overcome, it is more than likely that these represent the tribulation saints (cf. Luke 22:30). Evidence for this comes by way of a parallel passage in Rev. 7:13-14 concerning those coming out of the Great Tribulation who “have washed their robes and made them white.” Therefore, these seemingly represent the overcomers of Revelation 2 and 3! In short, the first 3 chapters of Revelation are part of prophecy, NOT history, featuring Turkey as the epicenter of end-time events! In fact, our traditional proleptic and anachronistic interpretations——in which we have erroneously *added* a “historical” component to the first 3 chapters of Revelation, while *taking* “away from the words of the book of this prophecy”——are strongly condemned by the author himself (Rev. 22.18-19):
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to
them, God will add to that person the
plagues described in this book; if anyone
takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take away that
person’s share in the tree of life and in the
holy city, which are described in this book.”
The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles
First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.
Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.
Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!
Was There An Oral Tradition?
The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
First, the gospels are written anonymously.
Second, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, there are no firsthand accounts.
Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:
“The majority of New Testament scholars
agree that the Gospels do not contain
eyewitness accounts; but that they present
the theologies of their communities rather
than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki
“Many biblical scholars view the discussion
of historicity as secondary, given that
gospels were primarily written as
theological documents rather than historical
accounts”. — Wiki
Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.
8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible
What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?
First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.
Mark 1.28
“News about him spread quickly over the
whole region of Galilee”.
Mt. 4.24
“News about him spread all over Syria.”
Matthew 4.25
“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and
the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan.”
So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?
Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.
Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.
Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.
Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.
Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:
“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th
century and from the Benedictine abbey at
Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving
copy of the passage describing Christians.
Scholars generally agree that these copies
were written at Monte Cassino and the end
of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus
cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of
the two abbots of that name at the abbey
during that period”. — Wiki
Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.
Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!
But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?
Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.
Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?
First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):
“For I would have you know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not of human invention. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I
taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.
There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ
I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
