How Do We Know What We Know?

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!

Η Γέννηση, ο θάνατος, και η Ανάσταση του Χριστού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

Θάνατος καί Ανάσταση στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

Απόδειξη ότι Δανιήλ 12.1 Αναφέρεται σε Ανάσταση από Θάνατο με βάση την Μετάφραση και Εκτέλεση των Βιβλικών γλωσσών.

Το κείμενο του Δανιηλ 12.1 βρίσκεται στο πλαίσιο της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας των τελικών χρόνων! Επαναλαμβάνεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου 24.21 ως η εποχή της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας— καιρός θλίψεως (βλ. Αποκ. 7.14).

Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1,

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

Το Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1 μεταφράζει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad) ως αναστήσεται, η οποία προέρχεται από τη ρίζα λέξη ανίστημι και σημαίνει *ανάσταση.*

Μετάφραση,

Εκείνη την εποχή, ο Μιχαήλ, ο μεγάλος πρίγκιπας, ο προστάτης του λαού σας, θα αναστηθεί. Θα υπάρξει μια περίοδος αγωνίας, όπως δεν έχει συμβεί ποτέ από την πρώτη ύπαρξη των εθνών.

Ο ισχυρισμός μου ότι η ελληνική λέξη ἀναστήσεται αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση από τους νεκρούς έχει αμφισβητηθεί από τους κριτικούς. Η απάντησή μου έχει ως εξής.

Το πρώτο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο είναι το γεγονός ότι ο Μιχαήλ αναφέρεται για πρώτη φορά ως αυτός που «ἀναστήσεται» (Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.1) πριν από τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών (ἀναστήσονται, Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.2). Εδώ, υπάρχουν ισχυρές γλωσσικές ενδείξεις ότι η λέξη *ἀναστήσεται* αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση, διότι στον αμέσως επόμενο στίχο (12.2) η πληθυντική μορφή της ίδιας λέξης (δηλ. ἀναστήσονται) χρησιμοποιείται για να περιγράψει τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών! Με άλλα λόγια, εάν η ίδια ακριβώς λέξη (ἀναστήσονται) σημαίνει ανάσταση στο Δανιήλ 12.2, τότε πρέπει επίσης η λέξη ἀναστήσεται να σημαίνει απαραίτητα ανάσταση και στο Δανιήλ 12.1! Είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι το απόσπασμα του Δανιήλ 12.1 χρησιμοποιεί την εβραϊκή μεσσιανική ορολογία ενός χρισμένου πρίγκιπα (βλ. Δαν. 9.25 και ἄρχων ὑμῶν Δαν. 10.21 Ο', πρβλ. Ησα 9.6 Ο' μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελός) για να σηματοδοτήσει την ανάσταση του Μεσσία στο τέλος του κόσμου.

Το δεύτερο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο προέρχεται από την παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα που χρησιμοποιεί τη λέξη παρελεύσεται για να ορίσει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad), η οποία μεταφράζεται ως *θα πεθάνει.*

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα (Δανιήλ 12.1) είναι ως εξής,

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα καταδεικνύει περαιτέρω ότι το Δανιήλ 12.1 κείμενο περιγράφει ένα θέμα θανάτου και ανάστασης επειδή η λέξη παρελεύσεται σημαίνει *θα πεθάνει,* υποδεικνύοντας έτσι τον θάνατο αυτού του εμφανιζόμενου πρίγκιπα στο τέλος του κόσμου! Επομένως, θέτει τη σκηνή για την ανάστασή του, καθώς η λεγόμενη μορφή «Θεοδοτίων Δανιήλ» συμπληρώνει τα κενά χρησιμοποιώντας τη λέξη αναστήσεται, που σημαίνει σωματική ανάσταση, για να καθιερώσει την περίοδο της εσχάτης ημέρας ως την ώρα κατά την οποία αυτός ο πρίγκιπας θα αναστηθεί από τους νεκρούς!

Συγκρίνετε το κείμενο του Ησαΐα στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα περί της Αναστάσεως του Κυρίου (δηλ. ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Ησαΐας 2.2):

εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς

σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας

τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου Κυρίου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν

ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν (Ησαΐας 2.19).

Η Γέννηση και ο θάνατος του Ιησού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Καινή Διαθήκη

Δύο Αρχές της Βιβλικής Ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να καθοδηγήσουν την έρευνά μας

Δύο αρχές της βιβλικής ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να θεωρηθούν θεμελιώδεις. Οι εξηγητές πρέπει να ερμηνεύουν το σιωπηρό από το ρητό και το αφηγηματικό από το διδακτικό. Στην πράξη, οι επιστολές της καινής διαθήκης και άλλες ρητές και διδακτικές μερίδες της Γραφής πρέπει να αποσαφηνίσουν την έμμεση σημασία των ευαγγελίων, η οποία δεν είναι βιογραφική αλλά *θεολογική* στη φύση, όπως οι Mπούλτμαν, Κροσάν, Λούντεμαν, Μάικ Λικόνα, Τζέιμς Κρόσλει, Ρόμπερτ Λ Τόμας, Φ Νταβίντ Φαρνελ, Ντένις Μακντόναλντ, Ρόμπερτ Γκάντρι, και Τόμας Λ Μπρόντι, μεταξύ άλλων, έχουν δείξει ξεκάθαρα!

Η ελληνική ερμηνεία, που μεταφράζεται κατευθείαν από το ίδιο το κείμενο, αμφισβητεί την κλασική χριστιανική ερμηνεία, η οποία βασίζεται κυρίως σε ιστορικές μυθοπλασίες. Η «ελληνική ερμηνεία» όχι μόνο συμπληρώνει τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες, αλλά ταιριάζει απόλυτα με τα θέματα του μεσσιανικού θανάτου και της ανάστασης στο τέλος του κόσμου που αναφέρονται στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη (βλ. Π.χ. Ησαΐας 2.19, Δαν. 12.1-2)! Εν ολίγοις, τόσο η εβραϊκή όσο και η χριστιανική Γραφή φαίνεται να λένε το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα, δηλαδή, ότι ο Μεσσίας θα εμφανιστεί για πρώτη φορά στο τέλος του κόσμου (βλ. Εβρ. 9.26β)!

Ο μελλοντικός Χριστός

Ελληνική Εξήγηση

Σύμφωνα με τα ρητά και διδακτικά τμήματα της Γραφής της Καινής Διαθήκης, ο Χριστός *γεννιέται* όταν ο χρόνος θα φτάσει στην πληρότητα ή την ολοκλήρωσή του, που εκφράζεται στην αποκαλυπτική φράση τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Γαλ. 4.4).

Σύμφωνα με την αναλογία γραφής, η χρονολογική περίοδος γνωστή ως *η πληρότητα του χρόνου* (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) στην Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ορίζεται στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή 1.9-10 ως η ολοκλήρωση των εποχών (πρβλ. Εβρ. 9.26β):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

Η πληρότητα του χρόνου (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή αναφέρεται στην ολοκλήρωση (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) όλων των πραγμάτων εις τον Χριστόν, των πραγμάτων στον ουρανό, και των πραγμάτων στη γη! Έτσι, σύμφωνα με την Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ο Χριστός γεννιέται κατά την ολοκλήρωση των αιώνων (δηλ. στο τελευταίο χρονικό διάστημα, πρβλ. Λουκ. 17.30, Εβρ. 1.2, Αποκ. 12.5, 19.10δ, 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

Η πρώτη εμφάνιση του Χριστού αποδίδεται «στο τελευταίο χρονικό σημείο» στην Α΄ Επιστολή Πέτρου 1,20 (Νέα Βίβλος της Ιερουσαλήμ),

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Περαιτέρω επιβεβαίωση κειμένου έρχεται μέσω της επιστολής προς Εβραίους 9.26β, το οποίο έχει ως εξής:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

Μετάφραση,

Έχει εμφανιστεί μια φορά για πάντα στο τέλος του κόσμου για την εξάλειψη της αμαρτίας με τη θυσία του [δηλ. τον θάνατο του].

Η ιστορική-γραμματική μελέτη της φράσης επί συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων καταδεικνύει ότι αναφέρεται στο «τέλος της εποχής» (δηλ. στο τέλος του κόσμου, πρβλ. Ματθαίος 13.39-40, 49, 24.3, 28.20, Δανιήλ 12.4 Ο', δείτε επίσης Τζ.Γ.Χ. Λάμπ, «Ένα Πατερικό Ελληνικό Λεξικό» [Οξφόρδη: πανεπιστήμιο Οξφόρδης, 1961], σελ. 1340).

Συμπέρασμα

Η υποτιθέμενη ιστορικότητα του Ιησού πρέπει να επανεξεταστεί, δεδομένου ότι η μόνη παρουσία του πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθεί στο τέλος του κόσμου! Κατά συνέπεια, αυτή η ερμηνεία υποστηρίζει ότι οι επιστολές είναι τα κύρια κλειδιά για το ξεκλείδωμα του μελλοντικού χρονοδιαγράμματος της μοναδικής επίσκεψης του Χριστού. Για να αποδείξουμε την εγκυρότητα αυτού του επιχειρήματος, πρέπει να επιστρέψουμε στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή της καινής διαθήκης προκειμένου να επικεντρωθούμε σε ζητήματα συγγραφικής πρόθεσης. Αν απορρίψουμε η αγνοήσουμε αυτή την υπόθεση ισοδυναμεί με ακαδημαϊκή ανεντιμότητα!

Ο Χριστός είναι Έλληνας

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Στην Καινή Διαθήκη υπάρχουν διάφοροι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο Ιησούς απεικονίζεται ως Εθνικός (μη Εβραίος). Μία από αυτές τις απεικονίσεις βρίσκεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (4.15-16), το οποίο μας λέει ότι ο Ιησούς δεν προέρχεται από τη Βασιλεία του Ιούδα (από Εβραίους) αλλά από την περιοχή της Γαλιλαίας (από Εθνικούς, βλ. Λουκά 1.26). Εκτός αυτού, στο κείμενο του Ιωάννη 8.48 οι Εβραίοι ονομάζουν τον Ιησού κατηγορηματικά ως «Σαμαρείτη» (δηλ. εθνικό) προκειμένου να αποδείξουν ότι δεν είναι Εβραίος.

Η διαίρεση των ανθρώπων έναντι του Ιησού επειδή δεν προέρχεται από τη Βηθλεέμ των Εβραίων αλλά από τη Γαλιλαία των Εθνών τονίζεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη (7.41-43):

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον · Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός · οἱ δὲ

ἔλεγον· Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς

ἔρχεται; οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ

σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς

κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός;

σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ⸃ δι’ αὐτόν.

Ο Ιησούς αψηφά τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες:

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

προφήτης ⸃ οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Κατά Ιωάννην

Ευαγγέλιο 7.52, βλ. Ματθαίος 4.15-16).

——-

Εξάλλου, τα περισσότερα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης γράφτηκαν στην Ελλάδα: Ρωμαίοι, Α΄ και Β' Κορίνθιοι, Γαλάτες, Α΄ και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς, Α΄ Τιμόθεος, Τίτος, και το βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης. Κανένα από τα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν γράφτηκε στην Παλαιστίνη. Και οι περισσότερες επιστολές απευθύνονται σε ελληνικές κοινότητες: Α΄ Κορινθίους, Β΄ Κορινθίους, Φιλιππησίους, Α΄ Θεσσαλονικείς και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς!

Είναι επίσης σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι όταν οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, συχνά παραθέτουν από την ελληνική μετάφραση των εβδομήκοντα και όχι από τα αυθεντικά εβραϊκά γραπτά (ακαδημαϊκή συναίνεση). Αυτό μπορεί να υποδηλώνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ήταν εξοικειωμένοι με την εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αυτό δείχνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης μάλλον δεν ήταν Εβραίοι αλλά Έλληνες, δεδομένου ότι χειρίζονταν άριστα την ελληνική γλώσσα. Και οι μελετητές μας λένε ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης έγραφαν από διαφορετικά μέρη του κόσμου και όχι από την Παλαιστίνη.

——-

Και γιατί οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ολοκλήρωσαν την αφήγηση του Θεού στα Εβραϊκά; Υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να πείσει κανείς τους Εβραίους ότι ο Ιησούς είναι η μεσσιανική εκπλήρωση της Εβραϊκής Γραφής από το να το γράψει στην εβραϊκή γλώσσα; Αλλά δεν το έκαναν! Ο λόγος είναι ο Ιησούς. Προφανώς δεν είναι Εβραίος αλλά Έλληνας! Έτσι η αφήγηση πρέπει να γραφτεί στα ελληνικά για να αντικατοπτρίζει τον έλληνα πρωταγωνιστή. Γι 'αυτό ακριβώς η Καινή Διαθήκη γράφτηκε στα Ελληνικά, όχι στα Εβραϊκά. Επιπλέον, εάν ο Χριστός ήταν Εβραίος θα έλεγε ότι είμαι τό Άλεφ και τό Ταβ. Αντ 'αυτού, ο Χριστός χρησιμοποιεί ελληνικά γράμματα για να ορίσει το θεϊκό «Εγώ ειμί»:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Αποκάλυψη

1:8).

Άλλωστε είναι σημαντικό να τονίσουμε ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα του Θεού (Γιαχβέ, που προφέρεται ως Ιεχωβά ή Γιαχβά) είναι επίσης το εβραϊκό όνομα για την Ελλάδα (Γιαβαν, βλ. Ιώσηπος Αρχαιολογία Βιβλ. 1, κεφ. 6). Αυτή η προφορική συμφωνία δεν είναι συμπτωματική. Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με το ελληνικό όνομα του Θεού. Σε μερικά σπάνια χειρόγραφα των εβδομήκοντα το τετραγράμματον μεταφράζεται ως *Ιαω* (γνωστό ως ελληνικό τρίγραμμα). Δηλαδή το θεϊκό όνομα Γιαχβά μετατρέπεται στην Κοινή Ελληνική ως Ιαω (βλ. π.χ. Λευ. 4.27 το χειρόγραφο των εβδομήκοντα [LXX] 4Q120). Αυτό το θραύσμα προέρχεται από τα Χειρόγραφα της Νεκρής Θάλασσας, που βρέθηκαν στο Κουμράν, και χρονολογείται από τον 1ο π.Χ. αιώνα.

Αυτό που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον είναι το γεγονός ότι το όνομα Ιαω φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες (γνωστούς ως ΙΑΩΝΕΣ), οι πρώτες λογοτεχνικές εικονογραφήσεις των οποίων βρίσκονται στα έπη του Ομήρου (Ἰάονες) και επίσης στα έργα του Ησιόδου (Ἰάων). Σχεδόν όλοι οι μελετητές της Βίβλου συμφωνούν ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα Γιαβάν αντιπροσωπεύει τους Ιάωνες, δηλαδή τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Εξάλλου, ανεξάρτητες βεβαιώσεις προέρχονται από τα Πατερικά γραπτά για το Τετραγράμματο. Σύμφωνα με την Καθολική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια (1910) και Μπ. Ντ. Έρντμανς: Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελός (1ος αιώνας π.Χ.) μεταφράζει το όνομα του Θεού ως Ἰαῶ. Ο Ειρηναίος (π. περ. 202) αναφέρει ότι οι Βαλεντινιανοί χρησιμοποιούν το θεϊκό όνομα Ἰαῶ. Ο Ωριγένης Αλεξανδρείας (π. περ. 254) γράφει Ἰαώ. Ο Θεοδώρητος του Κύρου (393 – περ. 458) γράφει επίσης Ἰαώ. Επομένως, το μυστικό όνομα του Θεού τόσο στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα όσο και στην Εβραϊκή Βίβλο φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει την Ελλάδα! Για αυτό και ο Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος δεν βρίσκεται τυχαία στην Ελλάδα. Είναι εκεί επειδή το κείμενο του έχει να κάνει με την αποκάλυψη του Ιησού και τον λόγο του Θεού:

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . . . ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ

καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ (Αποκάλυψη 1.9).

——-

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

By Author Eli Kittim

Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture

Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.

Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for

us men, and for our salvation, came down

from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy

Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, he was crucified for us under Pontius

Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and

the third day he rose again, according to

the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory,

to judge the quick and the dead.

Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!

And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels

If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!

This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles

If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.

According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!

Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the *teaching* of the epistles. For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d).

Furthermore, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.

The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!

What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?

A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).

See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation

Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.

Visions of the Resurrection

Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the *apocalyptic* message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph Bultmann,

‘The New Testament and Mythology,’ in

Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate,

ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H.

Fuller [London: S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have

seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

Conclusion

This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

A Call For a *New Reformation*

A common bias of modern Christianity is expressed in this way:

“If your doctrine damages other Biblical

doctrines, you’ve gotta change your

doctrine” (see “Galatians 5:1-12 sermon by

Dr. Bob Utley”; YouTube video).

Not necessarily. Maybe the previous Biblical doctrines need to change in light of new discoveries. Bible scholarship is still evolving like every other discipline. No one can say to Einstein: “if your theory damages previous theories, you’ve gotta change your theory.” What if the previous theories are wrong? Are we to view them as infallible?

What did the Reformers mean by sola scriptura? They meant that the Bible alone provides the “constitutive tenets of the Christian faith.” In other words, the basic tenets of the faith (e.g. credal formulations) are NOT to be found in papal decrees or councils but in the Bible alone! And they went to great lengths to show how both the church and its councils had made many mistakes.

If I can similarly demonstrate that the constitutive tenets of the Christian faith are wrong, and that the Bible contradicts modern Christianity, as the reformers did, then I, too, must call for a *new reformation*! Those hard core adherents of historical Christianity will of course excoriate me as a peddler of godless heresies without honestly investigating my multiple lines of evidence.

——-

1. The New Testament is an Ancient Eastern Text Employing the Literary Conventions of its Time

The New Testament doesn’t use 21st century propositional language but rather Eastern hyperbolic language, parables, poetry, paradox, and the like. Today, any story about a person is immediately seen as a biography. But in those days it could have been a poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call, “theology.” The gospel writers adopted many of the literary conventions of the ancient writings and created what would be analogous to Greek productions (see Dennis MacDonald’s seminal work, “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark”). We often miss the genre of the gospels by looking at it with modern western lenses.

——-

2. The Gospel Genre Is Not Biographical

This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological documents that demonstrate the presence of “intertextuality” (i.e. a heavy literary dependence on the Old Testament [OT]). If we don’t understand a particular genre out of which a unique discourse is operating from, then we will inevitably misinterpret the text. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological or apocalyptic in nature. It is precisely this quasi-biographical literary form that gives the “novel” some verisimilitude. How can we be sure? Let’s look at the New Testament (NT) letters. The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. 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 with unsurpassed lucidity:

“He was marked out before the world was

made, and was revealed at the final point of

time.”

——-

3. NT Scholars Demonstrate that the Gospels Are Not Historical

During his in-depth dialogue with Mike Licona on the historical reliability of the NT (2016), Bart Ehrman stated that “the NT gospels are historically unreliable accounts of Jesus.” In his book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” NT scholar Michael Licona has actually de-historicized parts of the gospel (i.e. Mt. 27.51-53), showing, for example, that the resurrection of the saints after Jesus’ crucifixion is indicative of a non-literal, apocalyptic genre rather than of an actual historical event. Licona suggests that the appearance of angels at Jesus’ tomb after the resurrection is legendary. He considers parts of the gospels to be “poetic language or legend,” especially in regard to the raising of some dead saints at Jesus’ death (Mt. 27.51-54) and the angel(s) at the tomb (Mk 15.5-7; Mt. 28.2-7; Lk 24.4-7; Jn 20.11-13). NT scholar, James Crossley agrees that the purported events of Mt. 27.52-53 didn’t happen. Licona is, in some sense, de-mythologizing the Bible in the tradition of Rudolf Bultmann. This infiltration of legend in Matthew extends to all the other gospels as well. According to the book called “The Jesus Crisis” by Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, two NT scholars, the sermon on the mount didn’t happen. The commissioning of the 12 did not happen. The parables of Matthew 13 and 14 didn’t happen. According to this book, it’s all made up. The magi? Fiction. The genealogy? Fiction! Robert H. Gundry, a professor of NT studies and koine Greek, has also said that Matthew 1-3 (the infancy narratives) were historical fiction (Midrash). Similarly, NT scholar Robert M. Price argues that all the Gospel stories of Jesus are a kind of midrash on the OT, and therefore completely fictional. Thomas L. Brodie, a Dominican priest, author, and academic, has similarly emphasised that most of the gospel thematic material is borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. These scholarly views have profound implications for so-called “historical Christianity,” its systematic theology, and its doctrines. Moreover, British NT scholar, James Dunn thought that the resurrection of Christ didn’t happen. He thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! What is more, Ludermann, Crossan, Ehrman, Bultmann all think that the resurrection is based on visions. So does Luke! No one saw Jesus during or after the so-called resurrection. The women saw a “vision” (Lk 24.23–24) just as the eyewitnesses did who were said to be “chosen beforehand” in Acts 10.40–41. Similarly, Paul only knows of the divine Christ (Gal. 1.11–12). With regard to the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, where more than 500 people supposedly saw Christ, Paul suggests that they all saw him just as he did. He declares: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared ALSO to me” (1 Cor. 15.8 emphasis added). In other words, in saying “also to me; Gk. κἀμοί), Paul suggests that Christ appeared to others in the same way or manner that he appeared to him (that is to say, by way of “visions”)!

——-

4. A Few Examples of Legendary Elements in the Gospels

A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. From the point of view of form criticism, it is 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? Another example demonstrates the legendary nature of the Trial of Jesus. Everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings.

Six trials occur between Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion:

Jewish Trials

1. Before Annas

2. Before Caiaphas

3. Before the Sanhedrin

Roman Trials

4. Before Pilate

5. Before Herod

6. Before Pilate

Every single detail of each and every trial is not only illegal, but utterly ridiculous to be considered as a historical “fact.”

Illegalities ...

a) Binding a prisoner before he was condemned was illegal.

b) It was also illegal for Judges to participate in the arrest of the accused.

c) It was also illegal to have legal proceedings, legal transactions, or conduct a trial at night. It’s preposterous to have a trial going on in the middle of the night.

d) According to the law, although an acquittal may be pronounced on the same day, any other verdict required a majority of two and must come on a subsequent day. This law was also violated.

e) Moreover, no prisoner could be convicted on his own evidence. However, following Jesus’ reply under oath, a guilty verdict was pronounced!

f) Furthermore, it was the duty of a judge to make sure that the interest of the accused was fully protected.

g) The use of violence during the trial was completely unopposed by the judges (e.g. they slapped Jesus around). That was not just illegal; that kind of thing just didn’t happen.

h) The judges supposedly sought false witnesses against Jesus. Also illegal.

i) In a Jewish court room the accused was to be assumed innocent until proved guilty by two or more witnesses. This was certainly violated here as well.

j) No witness was ever called by the defense (except Jesus’ self incrimination testimony). Not just illegal; unheard of.

k) The Court lacked the civil authority to condemn a man to death.

l) It was also illegal to conduct a session of the court on a feast day (it was Passover).

m) Finally, the sentence is passed in the palace of the high priest, but Jewish law demanded that it be pronounced in the temple, in the hall of hewn stone. They didn’t do that either.

n) Also, the high priest is said to rend his garment (that was against the law). He was never permitted to tear his official robe (Lev. 21:10). For example, without his priestly robe he couldn’t have put Christ under oath in the first place.

Thus, all these illegalities according to Jewish law are not only quite unimaginable but utterly unrealistic to have happened in history.

——-

5. Bart Ehrman Says That Paul Tells Us Nothing About the Historical Jesus

One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the renowned textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

“Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.”

——-

6. The External Evidence Does Not Support the Historicity of Jesus

A) There are no eyewitnesses.

B) The gospel writers are not eyewitnesses.

C) The epistolary authors are not eyewitnesses.

D) Paul hasn’t seen Jesus in the flesh.

E) As a matter of fact, no one has ever seen or heard Jesus (there are no firsthand accounts)!

F) Contemporaries of Jesus seemingly didn’t see him either; otherwise they’d have written at least a single word about him. For example, Philo of Alexandria is unaware of Jesus’ existence.

G) Later generations didn’t see him either because not even a passing reference to Jesus is ever written by a secular author in the span of approximately 65y.

H) The very first mention of Jesus by a secular source comes at the close of the first century (93-94 CE). Here’s the scholarly verdict on Josephus’ text: “Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum in its present form” - wiki

I) Even Kurt Åland——the founder of the Institute for NT textual Research, who was also a textual critic and one of the principal editors of the modern critical NT——questioned whether Jesus existed! In his own words: “it almost then appears as if Jesus were a mere PHANTOM . . . “ (emphasis added)! Bertrand Russell, a British polymath, didn’t think Christ existed either. He said: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all” (“Why I am not a Christian”).

J) Interestingly enough, even though scholars usually reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, they nevertheless support the historicity of Jesus, which seems to be a case of special pleading. In his article, “Beware of Consensus Theology,” Dr. Stephen R. Lewis correctly writes:

there have been so many things society has held

as true when in fact they are merely a consensus.

. . . We must beware of our own “consensus

theology.” . . . We must beware of allowing the

theology of anyone—Augustine, Martin Luther,

John Calvin, or whomever—to take precedence

over the teachings of Scripture.

——-

7. First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (1 Pet. 1.10-11 NIV).

Exegesis

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the NT, since there’s no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the OT. That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

“It was revealed to them that they were not

serving themselves but you, when they

spoke of the things that have now been told

you by those who have preached the gospel

to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.”

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by “the Spirit of Christ” (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity’s sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance—-or prophesied, if you will—-according to this apocalyptic NT passage!

_______________________________________

Here’s Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the NT. In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was “the gospel concerning his Son” “which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there’s no reference to “the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God … concerning his Son” in the OT:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be

an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel

concerning his Son” (Rom. 1.1-3 NRSV).

Moreover, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

——-

8. Conclusion: NT History is Written in Advance

The all-pervading scriptural theme——that Christ’s gospel, crucifixion, and resurrection is either promised, known, or witnessed *beforehand* by the foreknowledge of God——should be the guiding principle for NT interpretation. First, we read that “the gospel concerning his [God’s] Son” is “promised beforehand (προεπηγγείλατο; Rom. 1.2). Second, the text reveals that Jesus was foreknown to be crucified “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (προγνώσει; Acts 2.22-23). Third, this theme is reiterated in Acts 10.40-41 in which we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is *only* visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις; NASB). Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the knowledge of Christ’s coming was communicated beforehand to the preselected witnesses through the agency of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16.13; 2 Pet. 1.17-19 ff.). 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 fulfilment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance:

“I am God . . . declaring the end from the

beginning and from ancient times things

not yet done (Isa. 46.9-10).

Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a future event? (See my article “WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A REVELATION?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs).

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation

——-

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

By Author Eli Kittim

Christological readings

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Book of Daniel ch. 9. Despite being the subject of much hermeneutical study for thousands of years, it has nevertheless continued to baffle scholars and prophecy pundits alike. I will only deal with Christological readings and will not consider the historical-critical approach to Jewish eschatology, which usually presumes that the 70-weeks prophecy of Daniel pertains to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 215-164 BCE). Liberal epistemology is based on historical reductionism, which often leads to gross misinterpretations of Scripture. Historically speaking, Jews began to return to Jerusalem from their Babylonian exile in 538 BCE. They were prompted to do so under an edict issued by Cyrus, King of Persia, aka Cyrus's edict. They also began to rebuild their Temple which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. By ca. 515 BCE, the Second Temple was completed.

There are Three Major Historical Starting Points for the 70-Weeks Prophecy

The key passage to the 70 weeks prophecy is Dan. 9.25 (NRSV):

Know therefore and understand: from the

time that the word went out to restore and

rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an

anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks;

and . . . sixty-two weeks . . .

Daniel 9.26 goes on to predict the timeline pertaining to the death of the Messiah:

After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one

shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and

the troops of the prince who is to come shall

destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end

shall come with a flood, and to the end

there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

So, with regard to Daniel 9.25, there are 3 historical starting points of the prophecy. One is 538 BCE, which is associated with Cyrus’ edict. If you’re going to apply a historical interpretation, this appears to be the most precise date, given that it accurately portrays when “the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” as well as the timing of the restoration and rebuilding of the Temple sometime around 515 BCE!

The second date of the alleged starting point of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy, that some scholars employ, begins with the decree bestowed to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7), which supposedly terminates with Jesus’ Baptism 483 years later (i.e. 7 weeks = 49y & 62 weeks = 434y; thus 49 + 434 = 483y). These calculations employ the day to year principle (cf. Num. 14.34; Ezek. 4.5-6): one year for each day.

The third possible date, and the most popular, that follows Sextus Julius Africanus, is 445 BCE, which refers to the letter given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I (Longimanus cf. Ezra 2). It’s important to note that many writers use a 360-day year period based on biblical passages for reckoning time (e.g. Gen. 7.11, 24; 8.4).

Criticisms of the 70-Weeks Prophecy Historical Interpretations

There are, however, many confounds in these historical theories. One problem is that the text itself does not explicitly state whether the king reference in the passage is to Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE) or to Artaxerxes II (404–359 BCE). Although many scholars contend that Ezra probably lived during the time of Artaxerxes I, others are not convinced. Another problem is that the 69 weeks of years are supposed to terminate with the death of Christ, and yet the calculations from this perspective do not match the time of the purported Crucifixion.

Another exegetical problem is that although Christ and Antichrist appear simultaneously as contemporaries and are juxtaposed in the same verse (e.g. Dan. 9.26) regarding the 70th week, exegetes nevertheless deliberately separate the 70th week from the 69th week by a proposed 2,000 year gap between them. This decision doesn’t account for the end-time events that are described in the text (cf. Dan. 9.27). Furthermore, despite the violence done to the text, the proposed dates still do not match: they’re either too early or too late. They only appear to be close if you round them out.

There are other problems as well. Those who hold to the second possible date as the starting point of the prophecy, namely the date 457 BCE, contend that Jesus appeared during the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus (Lk 3:1), who reigned from 14 to 37 CE. This would put Jesus’ appearance at approximately 28 CE. But Daniel predicted not that the messiah would appear but that he would die on that date. So, this is also an inexact calculation. In his lectures, Chuck Missler frequently quoted a phrase that was coined by economist Ronald Coase: “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

The Historical Model: Sleight of Hand Hermeneutics

The first and only possible decree or edict to return, restore, and rebuild Jerusalem has to be the first one issued by Cyrus II of Persia, aka Cyrus the Great! In fact, the rebuilding process of Jerusalem had actually begun under Cyrus the Great, who had freed the Jews from Babylon, allowing them to return to Jerusalem in order to rebuild Solomon's Temple. As a result, many Jews returned in 538 BCE and began building the Temple in 536 BCE (Ezra 3.8). Not only that, but they completed it by 516/5 BCE (Ezra 6.15).

So why do most prophecy scholars attribute the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel to the letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 445 BCE? Almost a century earlier, in 538 BCE, King Cyrus made a public declaration granting the Jews the right to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But because that date doesn’t fit their calculations——because it would put Jesus’ appearance at about 55 BCE——scholars conveniently try to manhandle the Danielic prophecy in order to force their own private interpretations. So they arbitrarily move up the starting point of the prophecy to 445 BCE, 93 years later, with the aforesaid letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). But this is underhanded exegesis which is not supported by the data.

In fact, many such theories were devised in the 1800s (to calculate the coming of Jesus) which had as their starting point the *Babylonian exile.* All of them were wrong! The classic work on the 70 Weeks of Daniel is Sir Robert Anderson’s 1894 book, “The Coming Prince.” Similarly, the Millerites also used the *Babylonian exile* as their starting point to predict the future coming of Jesus. They also used the Book of Daniel chapter 8 (specifically Dan. 8.14), which ultimately led to a false prophecy and the “Great Disappointment” of 1844! In short, these 19th century writers have devised complicated, elaborate, and convoluted schemes which ignore history and arbitrarily assign chronological dates that only match or confirm their specific biases.

Returning to the 70 Weeks historical model, the alleged chronological timetable is also intentionally broken up and divided, as if there is a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and the 70th week, even though this is not what the text is describing. For example, the death of the *anointed messiah* and the timing of *the prince to come* are inextricably linked together and juxtaposed in the same verse as if they are contemporaries rather than separated by 2,000 years (Dan. 9.26). In fact, this thought continues seamlessly into the following verse (v. 27) as part of a running narrative without the slightest hint of a change in chronology!

This exegetical decision is therefore a case of special pleading. These exegetes make little effort to support the data. They use bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous, and vice versa.

The construction of this confusing exegesis is unwarranted. It embraces some questionable assumptions that do not square well with the data. It’s a failed attempt by Christian evidentialism to validate historical Christianity and the historical Christ by appealing to his fulfillment of Daniel 9. This is bad exegesis that prevents the text from being interpreted in a straightforward manner that is consistent with its grammatical and canonical contexts.

The Futurist Eschatology of Daniel 9

Notice that these events take place not in Antiquity but at “the end of time.” The Brenton LXX has the following footnote regarding Daniel 9.27:

. . . the original writes ἕως τῆς συντελείας,

i.e. -until- the end of time.

The realization that the 70-week prophecy is not referring to Antiquity is clear from Dan. 9.23-24:

So consider the word and understand the

vision: ‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your

people and your holy city: to finish the

transgression, to put an end to sin, and to

atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting

righteousness, to seal both vision and

prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.’

Notice that fulfillment of this prophecy requires the end of all transgression and sin, and the beginning of everlasting righteousness, which signifies the end of all vision and prophecy. This is reminiscent of the end-times in Rev. 10.7 when “the mystery of God will be fulfilled.” Many scholars know that the chronology of Dan. 9.24 is within a futurist eschatological timetable. To attribute it to the Babylonian exile is therefore inappropriate. Why? Because sin has not yet ended. Neither has prophecy. Another reason is that the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE and began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70. Let’s not forget that Ezekiel 38.8 prophesied that “In future years” Israel would be restored as a nation. So what is the timeline that the prophecy is alluding to?

The question is twofold:

If the 70-Weeks prophecy is referring to a restoration and a rebuilding that takes place in the end-times,

1) is it referring to the nation of Israel?

2) or is it referring to the rebuilding of Jerusalem?

Possible Answers:

1) Israel 1947/8

2) Jerusalem 1967/8

These are the most pertinent questions that should guide our hermeneutic. Depending on one’s exegetical decision, the calculation will take a different trajectory. In hindsight, we should be more accurate than our predecessors. We are not trying to set dates but only to frame the question correctly so as to set the tone for further exegetical studies.

How Can Weeks Be Interpreted as Years?

How can “weeks” be interpreted as years rather than heptads or seven-year periods?

The first reason is that Gabriel himself imparts a cryptic clue which, in effect, equates the “seventy weeks” of Daniel (Dan. 9.2) with the “seventy-year” oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Jer. 29.10). Gabriel suggests that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as “years” within Daniel’s seventy-weeks oracle. In other words, this framework allows us to perform calculations using “weeks” as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual “years.” That’s precisely why Gabriel doesn’t say 69 weeks but rather 7 weeks and 62 weeks! The values of these numbers appear to be different. The former is interpreted as weeks of years; the latter as years per se. However, an inversion would not work. For instance, if the former (i.e. the 7 weeks) is calculated as years, the calculation cannot work simply because we have exceeded the 50-year time period. That’s why the author did not clamp them together but carefully separated them to emphasize that their values are not equivalent.

The second reason why weeks can be interpreted as years has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term for “weeks” (Heb. שָׁבֻעִ֨ים šā·ḇu·‘îm; BHS) in Dan. 9.24. This term comes from the Hebrew term “shabua,” which typically means a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week, etc. But it can also refer to a Feast of weeks (Shavuot), otherwise known as Pentecost (cf. Exod. 34.22; Num. 28.26; Deut. 16.10, 16; 2 Chr 8.13):

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm

Interestingly enough, a Shavuot occurs once per year. So, using this definition of one “week” or one Shavuot per year would give us *70 weeks* or 70 Shavuots in 70 years.

Therefore, from starting point x until the coming of Messiah there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (Dan. 9.25). Why doesn’t Gabriel just say, “from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be” 69 weeks? But that’s not what he says, precisely because the 7 and the 62 do not comprise identical values. And why is that? Because the 7 weeks represent *one of the 2 Questions* we asked earlier, while the 62 weeks represents *another one of the 2 Questions* that I proposed. It appears, then, that the 7 weeks represent *weeks of years,* while the 62 weeks represents actual *years.*

Bear in mind that the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem technically began in 1968 when Israel started to rebuild the Jewish Quarter. Thus, the starting date for this variable may actually be 1968. Let’s not forget that the calculation must be consistent with a period “After the sixty-two weeks” in which “an anointed one shall be cut off” (Dan. 9.26).

The rebirth of Israel in 1948 may also be a viable option. The 70-year generation that culminated in 2018 may represent the final generation that “will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mt. 24.34). Notice that the Danielic verse (9.26) says AFTER the 62 weeks (not during) the messiah will be slain. So, hypothetically, 1948 could still work as a starting point since the messiah’s death may come a little while after the 62 weeks run out (i.e. *after* 2018). As already mentioned, there’s evidence to suggest that the 70 weeks of Daniel may be referring to 70 Shavuots or 70 actual years. This lends credence to an alternative interpretation that the 70 Shavuots may actually begin on Sabbath years. That is to say, the 70-Shavuots countdown may actually *begin* on the first Sabbath year in the modern State of Israel (which was 1951-1952), rather than in 1948!

How do we know which date is correct?

There is a litmus test. The coming of Messiah should fall within one generation from its starting point, be it Israel (1948) or Jerusalem (1967).

In fact, there is still one generation from 1948 to 2037 because Ps. 90.10 reads:

The days of our life are seventy years, or

perhaps eighty, if we are strong;

This means that people born in 1948 would still be in their 80s by the year 2037 CE. This would qualify as one generation!

It is important to remember Irenaeus’ claim in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Compare Jn 8.57:

You are not yet fifty years old, and have you

seen Abraham?

This is why the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that the “promise” is fulfilled in Abraham’s old age. That’s why something happened to Enoch when he was 65 years old, represented metaphorically through his giving birth to Methuselah, a symbol of eternity (Gen. 5.21; cf. 5.24)! All these pericopes are symbols of the promised “seed” who is Christ (Gal. 3.16).

Conclusion

To sum up, in contrast to the *historical* starting points of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy that have been traditionally proposed, I have presented an alternative *futurist-eschatological* model that can be equally applied with more success, and one that is actually more straightforward and faithful to the text’s grammar, canonical context, and authorial intent.

Here’s a case in point. By way of allusion, Dan. 12.1 is almost certainly employing the messianic terminology of “an anointed prince” (Dan. 9.25; cf. 10.21; Isa. 9.6) to signify the Messiah’s death and resurrection at the time of the end:

At that time Michael, the great prince, the

protector of your people, shall

arise.

In the following verse (12.2), Daniel goes on to describe the general resurrection of the dead that will occur during the same time period. Thus, the Messiah’s death apparently transpires *AFTER* (not before) 1948, as Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy seemingly suggests. This time period is elsewhere referred to as “καιροῦ συντελείας” (Dan. 12.4 LXX), which is translated as “the end of time” in Daniel ch. 9 (Dan. 9.27 LXX cf. 9.23-24; 12.4, 9, 13 NRSV)! Despite the fact that we don’t know the precise date, nevertheless Daniel’s 70-Weeks prophecy strongly suggests that the messiah will not come hundreds or even thousands of years from now but that he’s right around the corner: “right at the door” (Mt. 24.33 ISV)! In fact, according to Mt. 24.34, the last generation that sees the end-times signs will also see all things fulfilled. And Joel 3.1-2 ties the return of Israel to Armageddon. He claims that during the same time period that Judah and Jerusalem will be restored as a nation (1948) is when all the nations will come down to the valley of Jehoshaphat!