Romans5v6 - Tumblr Posts

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).

—————