Quest For The Historical Jesus - Tumblr Posts
The Lord’s Resurrection in the Last Days In Isaiah and Daniel
By author Eli of Kittim 🎓
According to Isaiah’s biblical account concerning “the last days” (Isa. 2:2) of mankind, “the LORD” will resurrect just prior to Judgment Day. Isaiah says the following:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He ARISES to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19, NASV, emphasis added).
This eschatological passage is echoed in Rev. 6:15-17. Interestingly enough, the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew word “קוּם qum” with the word “αναστη,” which is derived from the Greek word ανάστασις (anástasis) and means resurrection:
Eισενεγκαντες εις τα σπηλαια και εις τας σχισμας των πετρων και εις τας τρωγλας της γης απο προσωπου του φοβου κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου οταν αναστη θραυσαι την γην. ——-Isaiah 2:19, Septuagint LXX
New American Standard Translation:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises [or resurrects: ‘αναστη’] to make the earth tremble.”
Scholars render the Hebrew word “קוּם qum” as resurrection. The word in Hebrew, qum (קוּם i.e., cumi in Mark 5:41), and in Greek (LXX) — anastas — means “resurrection.” The word anastas is derived from the term ἀνίστημι and is the root word of ἀνάστασις: https://biblehub.com/greek/386.htm
Similarly, in the New Testament we find the same Greek word, meaning resurrection, attached to an end-time prophecy:
“THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES [‘anistamenos,’ means resurrects in Greek] TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE.” ——-Rom. 15:12
So what is the purpose of this brief study? We’re trying to show that according to Isaiah’s depiction, “the LORD … arises to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19) “in the last days” (בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית bə·’a·ḥă·rîṯ הַיָּמִ֗ים hay·yā·mîm Isa. 2:2), just prior to Judgment. A resurrection that had occurred two millennia ago would in fact contradict what we just read. Yet the New Testament itself doesn’t contradict this at all, but rather confirms it:
“Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. … After this the judgment” (Heb. 9:26-27 KJV).
So, as you can see, the Church’s teaching contradicts both the Old and New Testaments by telling us that this event already happened.
In Chapter 12 and verse 1, Daniel prophesies the death and resurrection of a great prince named Michael—meaning מִֽיכָאֵ֜ל “who is like God”—at the end of days. He writes:
"At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:1-2, NKJV).
The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew word “עָמַד amad” (“stand up”/arise) with the Greek word παρελευσεται, meaning to pass away:
ἡ γῆ παρελεύσεται NAS: and earth will pass away, KJV: and earth shall pass away, INT: the earth will pass away (Mt 24:35 Strong’s Concordance) https://biblehub.com/greek/pareleusetai_3928.htm
The Theodotion Daniel 12:1 of the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad) as αναστήσεται, which is derived from the root word ανίστημι and means “shall arise.” The word ἀναστήσεται is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.” Accordingly, notice how the term ἀναστήσεται in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Theodotion Dan. 12:1, we have the singular form ἀναστήσεται (“shall arise"). Similarly, ἀναστήσονται (the plural form in the Old Greek Dan. 12:2) represents an explicit reference to the general resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12:4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!
So Daniel is telling us that at the time of the end, when there will be great turmoil and distress upon the earth, Michael, the great prince—after passing away (παρελεύσεται)—will arise from the dead (αναστήσεται) in order to energize the general resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται)! What does all this mean? Daniel 12:1-2 reaffirms the last-days-resurrection theme found in Isaiah 2:19 and Hebrews 9:26-28. Therefore, Christ’s resurrection could not have happened two thousand years ago, as most people believe:
“[These] men … have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim. 2:18; cf. 1 Cor. 15:53-55).
Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?
—————
That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.
—————
If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).
A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:
“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).
Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.
—————
Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!
—————
Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:
“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).
—————
Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?
Eli Kittim
I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. One would be hard put to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.
For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.
As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.
The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!
But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!
Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!
There are many problems with that view.
First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.
Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!
How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?
