Supplementary Article No.

1: Appolos of Alexandria and the early Christian Apostolate "Apostles" in Early Christianity One of the puzzles which Paul in his letters presents to us is the nature of the apostolic movement of which he was a part. f the orthodox picture of Christian !e"innin"s were correct# we would expect to find reference to a system of missionary preachin" which traced its impulse !ac$ to the "roup in %erusalem $nown in the &ospels as the 'welve. (i"ures li$e Peter and %ohn# havin" had contact with the )aster himself on earth# and appointed !y him to spread the "ospel messa"e# would !e re"arded as authoritative# and Christian prophets wor$in" in the field would inevita!ly define themselves in relation to this privile"ed !ody in %erusalem and !e or"anized around it. n later times# efforts were made to create such a picture. Acts# pro!a!ly written well into the second century *see the )ain Articles# Part One+# presents a "olden,a"e !e"innin" for the Christian apostolic movement and ma$es Paul su!ordinate to and in a"reement with the %erusalem apostles# in !latant contradiction to Paul-s own letters. 'he &ospel of )ar$ is the first to offer an inner circle of 'welve chosen !y an earthly %esus# a "roup for which there is virtually no evidence in the earliest record. 'he mention of the .twelve. in 1 Corinthians 1/:/ is anythin" !ut clear# since they are listed separately from Peter and .all the apostles.. *'hey may !e an administrative !ody in the sect.+ Paul nowhere else "ives so much as a hint of chosen followers of %esus on earth.

'he word .disciple*s+. appears not once in the New 'estament epistles. 'his is the word used in the &ospels for followers attached to a ministerin" %esus# !ut in the epistles there is no mention of such followers or a ministry. nstead# we find only the word .apostle#. meanin" one who is sent out to preach# and it is used for men li$e Paul and Peter# 0arna!as and unnamed others# who are spo$en of as !ein" called !y &od and inspired !y the Spirit. *Note that in the &ospels# once the .disciples. are sent out !y %esus# they !ecome .apostles.: see )atthew 11:1,2.+ n Paul-s fre3uent discussions a!out apostleship# any reference to a "roup who had $nown an earthly %esus personally is conspicuous !y its a!sence. n &alatians 2:4 he tells us that &od had made Peter an apostle to the %ews 5ust as he had made Paul an apostle to the "entiles6 he is clearly allowin" no distinction in 3uality or ori"in !etween his own apostleship and that of Peter. Outside the &ospel of )atthew# there is no mention anywhere in the first hundred years to an appointin" of Peter !y %esus as the .roc$. on which the church will !e !uilt. n passa"es li$e 1 Corinthians 7:1f and &alatians 1:18# there is no su""estion that the re3uirement *or even an advanta"e+ for an accredited apostle has anythin" to do with havin" $nown an historical %esus. 9ather# the mar$ of the true apostle# Paul consistently tells us# is the reception of the proper revelation and authority from &od. (or traditional scholars# 2 Corinthians 11,12 has proven a particularly tou"h nut to crac$. :ho are these rival apostles *not to !e confused with an earlier set in 1 Corinthians# which will !e dealt with

!elow+ who have come into Corinth !ehind Paul and won over the hearts of his con"re"ation; 'hey claim to .!elon" to Christ. *11:8+. :ell# so does he# Paul states# and supports his apostleship !y declarin" that he had !een recommended !y the <ord himself *meanin" &od+. :e can !e sure that such rivals claimed no personal contact or lin$s with %esus of Nazareth# !ecause Paul never deals with such a claim# nor could he dismiss them as he does if they had had such contact. n fact# 11:=,> shows the !asis of these rivals- claim to authority# and it is identical to Paul-s own: .(or if someone comes who proclaims another %esus# not the %esus whom we proclaimed# or if you then receive a spirit different from the Spirit already "iven to you# or a "ospel different from the "ospel you have already accepted# you put up with that well enou"h. ?ave in any way come short of those superlative apostles; may !e no spea$er# !ut have $nowled"e . . .. *(rom the New @n"lish 0i!le translation+ ?ere Paul spells out that the source of apostolic inspiration for the preachin" of the Christ is the reception of a Spirit from &od. A few verses later# as he does elsewhere# Paul refers to his preachin" messa"e as .the "ospel of &od#. and all the epistles of the New 'estament *e.".# 1 Peter 1:12+ focus exclusively on this revelation throu"h &od-s Spirit as the force which has !e"un and maintains the preachin" movement. 'he spirits received !y these various apostles could !e so different that Paul accuses his Corinthian rivals of .proclaimin" another %esus#. of preachin" .a different "ospel.. ?e "oes on in 11:1A to call these rivals .sham apostles# croo$ed in all their practices# mas3ueradin" as apostles of Christ.. ?e implies that they are a"ents of Satan# who .will meet the end their deeds deserve. *11:1/+. And yet a few verses later he allows# "rud"in"ly# that they are# !y some o!5ective standard which the Corinthians accept# .servants of Christ. *11:2A+. )any have !een the attempts to identify these rivals with the %erusalem "roup around Peter and %ames# or to "ive them some connection to that !ody# !ut there are those who sensi!ly reco"nize that such uncompromisin" ire and condemnation cannot !e directed at the %erusalem apostles. 9ather# these are un$nown missionaries of the Christ# with no connection to the %erusalem "roup# and they carry ideas a!out the divine Son which Paul re"ards as so incompati!le with his own that he consi"ns them to Satan-s realm. :hether they are the same men whom he condemns and curses for preachin" a different "ospel to the &alatians *1:>,7+ is un$nown. A"ain# if the orthodox picture were correct# how could such a situation have arisen in the Christian apostolic movement so soon after its inception; n fact# what Paul "ives us is a familiar# timeless picture. ?e shows us a "roup of competin" individuals in the passionate and unfor"ivin" field of reli"ious proselytizin"# scratchin" and clawin" for a !i""er share of the mar$et. 'hey advance rival personal claims and attac$ one another-s motives and 3ualifications6 they are capa!le of "oin" for the 5u"ular. 'hey are intolerant of opposin" views. And they are all on a level playin" field. None of them attempts any lin$ to the man himself who is supposed to !e the center of their messa"e. No one ever draws a distinction alon" such lines. 'his application of the concept of .apostle. to all and sundry# to"ether with the a!sence of any early evidence that the term was narrowly applied to a select "roup chosen !y %esus# has led scholars of no less stature than 9udolf 0ultmann * Theology of the New Testament # # pa"e A8+ to declare that the notion of an inner circle of 'welve surroundin" %esus is not historical# !ut a later invention. :. Schneemelcher# in New Testament Apocrypha * # 2/+# admits that .the ori"in and idea of the apostolate is one of the most intricate and difficult pro!lems of New 'estament scholarship.. 'he pro!lem disappears# of course# when one realizes that no select "roup attached to %esus shows up in the early record !ecause there was no )aster to whom they could !e attached. Apollos of Alexandria 'he rival apostles we encounter in Paul-s letters are unnamed. @xcept for one. 'he fi"ure of Apollos# an apostle from Alexandria# emer"es tantalizin"ly from the shadows in 1 Corinthians and in Acts. <et-s see what we can "lean a!out him# and what $ind of insi"ht he provides into the nature

to p

of early Christianity. :hat does Acts have to say a!out Apollos; ?ere are the $ey verses from 14:2=,24: 2= Now a %ew named Apollos# a native of Alexandria# came to @phesus. ?e was an elo3uent 2/ man# well versed in the scriptures. ?e had !een instructed in the way of the <ord6 and !ein" fervent in the Spirit# he spo$e and tau"ht accurately the thin"s concernin" %esus# thou"h he $new 2> only the !aptism of %ohn. ?e !e"an to spea$ !oldly in the syna"o"ue6 !ut when Priscilla and A3uila heard him# they too$ him and expounded to him the new way *or# the way of &od+ more 24 accurately. . . . (or he powerfully confuted the %ews in pu!lic# showin" !y the scriptures that %esus was the Christ.. *(rom the 9evised Standard Bersion+ support the views of %ohn Cnox# %. '. 'ownsend# 0urton )ac$# %. C. O-Neill and others# that Acts was written a num!er of decades into the second century. t has no clear attestation !efore the year 181. 'he writer of this document# pro!a!ly the same one who redacted the final version of the &ospel of <u$e# has recast whatever traditions he may have used to reflect a !elief in an historical %esus. 0ut he has left telltale contradictions in his account. @rnst ?aenchen has discussed these in his The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary *p.//=f+. One evident contradiction exists !etween statements in verses 2/ and 2>. 'he first says that Apollos tau"ht accurately concernin" %esus# the next states that Priscilla and A3uila had to correct his teachin". (urther# if Apollos tau"ht accurately as a Christian apostle# how is it he $new only the !aptism of %ohn; %ohn-s !aptism was one of purification# .in to$en of repentance. *17:=+. %osephus * Antiquities of the Jews # 14./.2+ tells us that the !aptism of %ohn was a ritual washin" to purify the !ody. Paul# on the other hand# !aptized in the name of %esus# which was supposed also to confer the ?oly Spirit on the convert. Some scholars have 3uestioned how Apollos could !e a Christian missionary and not $now the proper Christian !aptism# !ut the answer to this little puzzle must !e that no sin"le# universal form of the rite existed at this time# and that it was possi!le for an apostle preachin" the Christ not to !e familiar with Paul-s type of !aptism# !ut to have $nowled"e of a different !aptism of the type practiced !y %ohn. Certain scholars *see ?aenchen# op.cit. # p.//= and //1 n.11+ have denied Apollos any Christian status at all# and see him as a %ewish preacher of repentance li$e %ohn# or# more fre3uently# as a teacher of wisdom. ?e may# they say# have !een the one responsi!le for leadin" Paul-s Corinthian con"re"ation astray# offerin" the view that the !eliever# throu"h the reception of divine wisdom# could enter immediately into a state of spiritual perfection. Stylin" themselves .the stron"#. those who followed Apollos- teachin" now claimed that they did not have to await eschatolo"ical developments or a future resurrection# !ut that throu"h !aptism they were already resurrected. All this went a"ainst Paul-s own views# and he hotly contests his position a"ainst theirs throu"hout 1 Corinthians. Scholarship tends naturally to interpret such wisdom teachin" at Corinth *and elsewhere+ as founded on an interpretation of the historical %esus and his teachin"s. *See ?elmut Coester# Trajectories Through Early Christianity # p.1=7f.+ 'his# of course# is !ased on &ospel preconceptions# !ut we have to note that Paul# in his efforts to counter those who have in his view misled his Corinthian con"re"ation# fails to ma$e any reference whatever to an earthly %esus or to any presumed wisdom teachin"s of his which the opponents have supposedly misused. n a dispute over how to interpret the sayin"s of %esus# neither Paul# nor apparently his opposition *since he ma$es no mention of such a thin"+# appeals to those sayin"s. 'his silence in 1 Corinthians is almost inexplica!leDexcept on one !asis: neither Paul nor his rivals $new of any such human teacher or teachin"s. Coester * Ancient Christian Gospels # p.>1,

>1+ admits: . t is stri$in" that Paul never 3uotes any of these sayin"s directly#. referrin" to the wisdom sayin"s of %esus which he claims .must have !een $nown to !oth Paul and the Corinthians#. and .must have !een the !asis *on+ which the Corinthians claimed to have received their salvation.. New 'estament scholarly discussion is full of such .must !e. assumptions# even in the face of the star$ a!sence of such thin"s from the record itself# and even as they admit astonishment at this state of affairs. 'hus# we can !e fairly confident that Acts has recast traditions a!out Apollos in order to !rin" him into the fold as an orthodox preacher of an historical %esus. 0ut what mi"ht Apollos actually have preached; 'he fact that he came from Alexandria in the middle of the first century ma$es it hi"hly li$ely that he offered a type of wisdom theolo"y which came out of the ?ellenistic %udaism of his home city# that stream of philosophy expressed in the writin"s of the %ewish Platonist Philo and in the document $nown as the :isdom of Solomon. Apollos was pro!a!ly a teacher of revealed $nowled"e which in itself claimed to confer salvation *Coester calls it a .life,"ivin" wisdom.+. And it may !e that his preachin" represented an evolution !eyond earlier ideas in seein" a spiritual Christ as a concrete divine fi"ure who was responsi!le for this revelation# a Christ who had "rown out of Alexandrian traditions of personified :isdom *Sophia+ wedded with the &ree$ <o"os. *See chapters 8 to 11 of the :isdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha of most Old 'estaments.+ Such an Alexandrian evolution is attested to in a set of .?ellenistic Syna"o"al Prayers. which have !een preserved in the =th century Christian document $nown as the Apostolic Constitutions. will !e ma$in" an analysis of these prayers in a future postin" *see Supplementary Article No. /+. And a related picture of such evolution is evident in the Odes of Solomon# pro!a!ly from northeastern Syria: see Supplementary Article No. =. Apollos in Corinth 0ut can we lift the veil on Apollos and his preachin" still further !y what Paul has to say in 1 Corinthians; 'hou"h he handles the su!5ect of Apollos in chapters 1 and A tactfully# Paul clearly re"ards the Alexandrian as a rival and disapproves of his teachin". 'he rivalry# in fact# is so pronounced that the Corinthian con"re"ation has !ro$en up into cli3ues# specifically those who follow Paul and others who follow Apollos. . have !een told . . . that there is 3uarrellin" amon" you . . . that each of you is sayin": - am for Paul#- or - am for Apollos#- or - follow Cephas- or - Christ-.. *1 Cor. 1:11,12+ :e should first note that the third and fourth "roups mentioned here are considered du!ious. :as Paul referrin" to actual "roups in Corinth who declared alle"iance to .Peter. or to .Christ.; *'here is no evidence elsewhere that Peter ever went to the &ree$ city.+ Or has Paul added them as further illustrations of the concept of alle"iance to particular fi"ures# even if it is difficult to $now exactly what he could have meant !y that last desi"nation; :ayne )ee$s * First r!an Christians # p.118+# :alter 0auer * "rtho#o$y an# %eresy in Earliest Christianity # p.11A+# (rancis :atson * &aul' Ju#aism an# the Gentiles # p.41f+ are only some of the scholars who have dou!ted that Peter went to Corinth or that any party there had ali"ned itself with him. *Paul never discusses such a Petrine rivalry or even mentions .%udaizers. that far west.+ 'hus it is li$ely that the only cli3ues in the &ree$ city Paul is actually dealin" with are those which have ali"ned themselves !ehind himself and !ehind Apollos. (rom this introduction to the dispute in Corinth# Paul launches directly into his "reat discourse on the folly of worldly wisdom vs. &od-s wisdom# and it is folly in itself not to re"ard this discussion as directly relatin" to the dispute with Apollos. 0ut let-s delay that for a moment and consider first the next passa"e in which Paul directly refers to Apollos# the one in chapter A. ?ere Paul presents a series of analo"ies to portray the relative roles of himself and Apollos in

Corinth. ?e is tryin" to handle the rivalry as diplomatically as possi!le. ?e wants to win !ac$ his Corinthian con"re"ation without an overt attac$ on Apollos and those who have responded to him. 0ut his su!tlety does not hide his disapproval of Apollos- doctrine. n A:> Paul states: . planted the seed# and Apollos watered it6 !ut &od made it "row.. 'his pride of place Paul claims for himself in the Corinthian "arden *since Apollos came after him+ is supplemented !y another analo"y in A:11,18# that of .&od-s !uildin".. ?ere Paul .laid the foundation#. which he declares is .%esus Christ himself#. meanin" his personal doctrine a!out the Christ. Epon it# another *he uses no names here# !ut Apollos is clearly implied+ has !uilt a construction. And now Paul lets his animosity shine throu"h# for he warns that the 3uality of that construction will have to suffer the test of fire on the day of 5ud"ment. 'hen# stylin" the Corinthians as &od-s temple# he warns *A:18+ that .anyone who destroys &od-s temple will himself !e destroyed !y &od#. and he concludes his little diatri!e !y revisitin" the theme of the foolish wisdom of the world vs. &od-s wisdom *which is to say# what Paul preaches+. 'hat Apollos comes out on the short end of the critical stic$ in all this# or that he is to !e identified amon" .those who fancy themselves wise. *A:14+ and are in dan"er of divine destruction# is hardly to !e dou!ted. See ?aenchen# op.cit. # p.///,># for an analysis which similarly 5ud"es Apollos as the o!5ect of Paul-s condemnation# as one who preaches .a forei"n element which to him appears as chaff rather than "old.. ?aenchen re"ards Apollos as .a missionary 3uite independent in his wor$ and thou"ht#. readin" Acts- presentation of him as havin" .not the sli"htest support in 1 Corinthians.. Wisdom and Folly Fet am 3uite sure that ?aenchen has not perceived the full extent of that .chaff.. t-s impossi!le to tell from 1 Corinthians A exactly what Apollos preached# !ut what of chapter 1; n verses 18, A1# followin" on the introduction of the dispute that has arisen in Corinth !etween supporters of the two apostles# Paul has condemned the .wisdom of the world. in no uncertain terms. And althou"h he seems to !roaden his net of condemnation# the fish at the center of his cast# would ar"ue# remains Apollos# as a preacher of worldly wisdom. So what is the issue in chapter 1; <et-s 3uote the $ey verses: 18 . . . . * was sent+ to preach the "ospel# !ut not with words of worldly wisdom# so that the cross of Christ would not !e rendered invalid Gor# !e voided# destroyed# ro!!ed of its 14 si"nificance: there are many translations to !e found of this su!tle &ree$ ver!H. (or the messa"e of the cross is foolishness to those on their way to ruin# !ut to us who are !ein" saved it 21 is the power of &od . . . . . .&od chose to save those who have faith !y the folly of the "ospel. 22 2A %ews demand miraculous si"ns and &ree$s loo$ for wisdom# !ut we proclaim Christ 2= crucified# a scandal *stum!lin",!loc$+ to %ews and a folly to &entiles# !ut to those who are called# !oth %ews and &ree$s# Christ *is+ the power of &od and the wisdom of &od.. n passin"# we mi"ht well as$ where is %esus of Nazareth in this .wisdom of &od#. the fact of the Son-s incarnation into flesh# and why the elevation of a crucified criminal# a human man# to &odhead is not also a folly to %ews and &ree$s# re3uirin" some defence# some word of reference to it# on Paul-s part. n verse 21# Paul adopts the word .folly. for himself and his own doctrine# in a self,deprecatin" irony. Paul-s folly is in fact &od-s own wisdom# the wisdom in Paul-s "ospel messa"e. And what is this wisdom,folly; t is the doctrine of the cross. .:e proclaim Christ *havin" !een+ crucified.. 'his is an offense to %ews and somethin" foolish to the &ree$s.

'he point want to stress is that there is no implication here that Paul is referrin" to some nicety of interpretation a!out the crucifixion or its si"nificance. t is the fact itself of Christ crucified# the very import of the act havin" ta$en place. Paul-s presentation of the Christ centers on the claim that he was crucified# and the purpose this has served in &od-s plan for salvation. *And crucified# incidentally# !y whom; n the next chapter# 2:>,4# Paul attri!utes it to the demon spirits of the heavenly realm: see my Part 'wo article# and Supplementary Article No. A: :ho Crucified %esus;+ t is this fundamental doctrine which !oth %ews and &ree$s have found o!5ectiona!le# that the Son of &od should have under"one such a fate. And !ecause Apollos is at the center of the net cast over the foolish wisdom of the world# the conclusion must !e that Apollos# too# denies this doctrine. After all# it ma$es no sense that Paul would waste his time in a letter to the Corinthians Done aimed at restorin" their splintered alle"iance in the face of rival preachin"Dwith ar"uments directed a"ainst people in "eneral who have failed to respond to his "ospel. No# those a"ainst whom he levels his accusations of folly must include Apollos# and it shows that there are Christian apostles "oin" a!out preachin" a Christ whose crucifixion they i"nore or re5ect# who dispara"e Paul-s own presentation of the Christ as a crucified deity. n other words# they have no theolo"y of a cross. n the context of the orthodox picture of an historical %esus# this would !e an astonishin" development to have ta$en place only two decades after %esus- passin"# for how could any Christian preacher a!andon the central element of the crucifixion if the movement# still in its infancy# had arisen out of the death of %esus of Nazareth and his supposed resurrection; Such apostles at the time of their own conversion would surely have accepted such a doctrine. And how in their revisionist preachin" could they "et other Christians# ones previously converted !y Paul# even to listen to them; 0ut# of course# the situation is much star$er than this. Paul# as said# proclaims .Christ crucified#. plain and simple. Not a doctrine of the redemptive power of that event# not a claim to its importance# !ut the fact itself as an item of religious faith . A"ain# the inference to !e drawn is that Paul-s rivals have no such doctrine at all. Paul would !e discussin" his !rand of wisdom# Christ crucified# only if the trou!lema$ers in Corinth were advocatin" the !rand of wisdom he dispara"es# that which considers the cross a stum!lin",!loc$ and a folly. 'hus Paul-s opponents# Christian apostles and Apollos himself# preach a Christ who was not crucified# a Christ a!out whom such a feature was unaccepta!le# somethin" foolish. n Paul-s view# they are the ones .on their way to ruin. *1:14+# the sort of lan"ua"e he uses *see 2 Corinthians 11 and 11 and &alatians 1:>f+ not for the wider non,!elievin" world !ut for rivals who preach a different concept of %esus. f this were not an out,and,out re5ection of Christ crucified# Paul would not put it in such !are terms. ?e would ma$e some reference to the aspect of the cross or its si"nificance which the dissidents disapproved of. ?e would point at the very least to the historicity of it and challen"e those who did not interpret the event the way he did. 'hat ver! in verse 18 is a little woolly# !ut it conveys Paul-s sentiment: have seen the fact# the veracity# of the cross# it is part of the wisdom of &od# while others are i"norin" it# la!elin" it folly# or have re5ected such a thin". C. C. 0arrett spea$s of the .appraisal. of the cross * First Epistle to the Corinthians # p.//+# !ut this is precisely what is missin". 'here is no discussion a!out the cross# it is the cross itself# Christ havin" !een crucified. Competing Christs from Scripture n what sort of scenario do all these o!servations fit !est; t would not seem to !e one of radically different proclamations of a recent historical event. Accordin" to Acts# Apollos was a man .powerful in his use of the scriptures . . . fervent in the Spirit. *14:2=# 2/+. Such a

description su""ests that !oth he and Paul *and many others !esides+ were "oin" a!out preachin" a Christ derived from the sacred writin"s. 'hrou"h inspiration# each man interpreted those writin"s and cast his picture and doctrine of the Christ accordin" to his own s$ill and disposition. 'hose who responded to Paul-s opponents in Corinth !elieved that they had now reached a state of perfection6 they were wise in the possession of the Spirit and saw themselves as havin" already under"one resurrection and entered the $in"dom. 'heirs was a .wisdom. !ased on revelation# imparted throu"h the spiritual Christ# a wisdom which itself !estowed salvation. *'his is a concept a$in to &nosticism as it flowered at a later date.+ 'o these Corinthian enthusiasts the idea of a crucified Christ meant nothin"6 it was perhaps even repu"nant. Paul# on the other hand# was a man who could ma$e no positive investment in the present# who could feel no deli"ht in this world. n his readin" of the scriptures# as he reminds the Corinthians in 1/:A,=# he preferred to focus on passa"es which he saw as pointin" to Christ-s sufferin" on a cross *in the spiritual world+ and its redemptive power over sin# on the promise for the future which would !e realized only at the @nd,time *1/:21,2=+. ?e had# throu"h !aptism# died to sin and risen to a new life in Christ# !ut as for "lory and perfection# that would come only when the whole world was transformed at Christ-s comin". 'hus# his messa"e was eschatolo"ical# and centered exclusively on Christ crucified# a concept derived from the writin"s and a .wisdom. some of his rivals la!eled folly. 'he picture in 1 Corinthians is the picture of varyin" interpretations of scripture# of individual experiences of inspiration# of different types of personality. 'he overridin" reli"ious atmosphere of the time was the search for the divine communication of salvation# conferred throu"h an intermediary spiritual entity variously styled the Son# the <o"os# :isdom# the Christ *see Part 'wo+. t was the search for a Savior. %ews and those who attached themselves to %udaism !elieved that information a!out this SaviorDwho operated in the hi"her world of myth# li$e all the other savior "ods of the dayDwas im!edded in the %ewish writin"s. 0ut it was cryptic# it needed decodin". And not all "roups or individuals decoded in the same manner# or arrived at a Savior who had under"one sufferin" and death. 'he early Christian record is full of documents which offer a Son without these features: 'he @pistle of %ames# the Iidache# the Odes of Solomon# the Shepherd of ?ermas# many second century apolo"ists. n some cases# such a Son is simply a 9evealer. *J and the &ospel of 'homas also have a %esus who does not suffer and die# !ut this is a different case in that it reflects an invented human founder of an *ori"inally+ non,cultic nature: see Part 'hree.+ 'hose li$e Paul who were convinced that the word of &od came to them throu"h the Spirit declared their own interpretations to !e correct. 'heir messa"e constituted the .wisdom of &od.. 'hrou"hout the first century# apostles from a variety of centers were criss,crossin" the empire# winnin" converts to their "ospels# counterin" the differin" messa"es of their rivals. 'he Corinthians are free to accept one version or another# as they see fit. All Paul can do is protest# point to his own wor$ and dedication# to his conviction that he had !een recommended !y &od# to his visions. Nowhere in this picture do Paul or his opponents appeal to the record of the historical %esus# to any authorized channels "oin" !ac$ to %esus himselfDan impossi!le void in this competitive apostolic world if such a record# such a %esus# had existed.

Supplementary Article No. 2

A SOLUTION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE

OF JOHN
Introduction
'he puzzle of 1 %ohn# a phrase that has !ecome almost a clichK# is usually presented in terms of the epistle-s fundamental incoherence. %. C. O-Neill *The &u((le of ) John# p.1+ declares that .the whole attempt to find a connected train of thou"ht in the @pistle is misplaced. Pro"ression of thou"ht from one para"raph to the next is usually unclear . . .. Iifferent and contradictory ideas are found 5uxtaposed. Specific themes and terms are concentrated in one section of the letter !ut nowhere else6 or they may occur at widely separated intervals. %. ?. ?oulden *The Johannine Epistles# p.22# A1+ has called this epistle .a puzzlin" wor$#. and su""ests that .to try to find a sin"le lo"ical thread . . . is lia!le to lead to infinite complexity or to despair.. 'hat 1 %ohn is a document which has !een .assem!led. from multiple sources# or was composed over time !y havin" new elements added to earlier layers# are ideas that have !een around for many years# althou"h there are commentators who steadfastly refuse to see any layerin" at all. )y own solution adopts the principle that the epistle was added to over time# !ut it also !enefits from a!andonin" esta!lished preconceptions which are still !ein" applied. do not attempt to address every detail of the epistle# or even every puzzlin" element in it *some are mentioned only in passin"+. 9ather# will concentrate on its !road outlines alon" with a few $ey passa"es# so as to illuminate the evolution of the document and the community-s thin$in"# and to draw implications for an understandin" of Christian "enesis as a whole. will in most cases refer only to the first epistle of %ohn# the lon"est# most su!stantial of the three. 'he third is very short and does not discuss matters of faith. 'he second is also short !ut repeats certain points from 1 %ohn. 'his second epistle must come later than 1 %ohn# or at least later than all !ut the final sta"e of it. 2 %ohn will !e mentioned only where it adds to or clarifies what 1 %ohn is sayin". 'hat all three epistles were written !y the Apostle %ohn in the &ospels is no lon"er seriously held. *Nor is that Apostle any lon"er thou"ht to !e the author of the (ourth &ospel+. 'he author of the %ohannine epistles is un$nown. 'he second and third epistles identify the writer as .the @lder#. thou"h whether this man wrote any part of the first epistle is not certain. will also have a few thin"s to say a!out the &ospel of %ohn. 'hose who wish to follow only the core ar"ument of this article# may s$ip those sections which have a headin" preceded !y an asteris$.

The Johannine Community

)uch has !een written a!out the nature and location of the %ohannine community *or perhaps a circle of communities# usually located somewhere in northern Syria+ which produced the epistles and the &ospel# for it is reco"nized that %ohannine ideas are often worlds apart from those of the Synoptics. ndeed# scholars often treat this %ohannine community as thou"h it were some ancient Shan"ri,la# a mountain fastness penetrated and converted !y some mysterious apostle from %erusalem# only to shut itself off from the wider world of the Christian movement and evolve in its own uni3ue fashion. 'he view of %esus contained in the (ourth &ospel is unli$e any other in the New 'estament. :hen the superficial overlay of the pattern of %esus- ministry and passion is stripped awayDsomethin" which# as analyze it# would have !een !orrowed at a later sta"e from some synoptic source and imposed on earlier material a!out a spiritual 9evealer SonDone finds a fi"ure who !ears little relationship to the %esus of )ar$ and his redactors# )atthew and <u$e# or# for that matter# to the %esus of Paul. n fact# the %ohannine literature is one of the !est pieces of evidence we have in support of the theory that Christian ideas "rew up independently in many places# and that the movement as a whole did not !e"in from any one point and fi"ure of ori"in. 'his particular set of ideas is headed in the direction of the second century "nostics# so that the %ohannine community is often la!eled .proto,"nostic..

*A Preliminary uestion! Which Came First"

0efore unravelin" 1 %ohn itself# one 3uestion should !e addressed. :hich was written first# the epistles or the &ospel; 'hat the former predate the latter should !e# even !y New 'estament standards# a simple and lo"ical conclusion. Fet a "reat ma5ority of scholars who have examined these documents have opted for the reverse. After examinin" the 3uestion# we will see why this is so. n theolo"y and doctrinal points# in lan"ua"e and expression# the epistles are more primitive than the &ospel6 even those who ar"ue that the &ospel came first ac$nowled"e this impression. n 1 %ohn# not a sin"le &ospel detail is !rou"ht in# no teachin"s are attri!uted to a human %esus6 there is not even a specific reference to the cross and nothin" at all a!out a resurrection. 'hose who ar"ue for the priority of the &ospel view the epistle as an attempt to reesta!lish more traditional principles in the face of a $ind of .runaway. interpretation of %esus as portrayed in the &ospel. 'hose usin" the &ospel# so the theory "oes# were movin" in dan"erous directions# specifically toward &nosticism. Now# it is true that some form of the &ospel of %ohn first surfaces as a favorite of second century "nostics. Conse3uently# it seems to have !een re"arded with suspicion !y orthodox circles until it was .revamped. around the middle of the century and !rou"ht into the ecclesiastical fold. 0ut nowhere in 1 %ohn does the writer allude to such a situation# let alone spell it out. f he is counterin" a se"ment

of his community which has .misused. the &ospel# how can he fail to refer to that &ospel; ?ow can he avoid pointin" to specific features of it in the course of defendin" a .proper. interpretation of %esus; :hy have the fundamental doctrines of the &ospel simply dropped into a !lac$ hole; One of these# for example# is the Paraclete. 'his concept is paramount in the &ospel of %ohn: %esus promises to send# once he is "one# .another to !e your Advocate *para*letos+# who will !e with you forever# the Spirit of truth. *1=:1>+. 'his Spirit promised !y %esus will "uide !elievers until he returns. Now# 1 %ohn is a polemical document. t attempts to counter various opponents it la!els liars# deniers and Antichrists. n =:1f it spea$s of true and false .spirits. claimed !y different factions of the community6 those which a"ree with the writer are .from &od#. those holdin" differin" views are false. 0ut not only does the author show no $nowled"e of %esus- promised Paraclete in all this# he lac$s even the fundamental idea that any appeal can !e made to traditions of !elief or authority "oin" !ac$ to %esus. 'he world of the epistle writer functions accordin" to current .spirits. claimed from &od# nothin" more6 as such# it conforms to the wider Christian picture we see in Paul# of inspiration from the Spirit. 'hat the author would either !e i"norant of or choose to i"nore the entire SpiritLParaclete tradition as recorded in the &ospel# if this was already in existence# is impossi!le to accept. *Note that the reference to an .advocate. in 1 %ohn 2:1 is not to such a spirit actin" on !elievers# !ut to %esus himself intercedin" with &od in heaven.+ On the other hand# the development of the Paraclete tradition em!odied in the &ospel can !e easily understood as a su!se3uent solution to the pro!lem of conflictin" .spirits. in the community of 1 %ohn. 'his sort of thin" is a universal feature of sectarian activity: pro!lems and disputes are solved !y havin" an authoritative position on them read !ac$ into the past# usually at the !e"innin"s of the sect and em!odied in a statement or action !y the founder. )any ideas in the &ospel of %ohn can !e viewed as attempts to solve pro!lems faced !y the earlier community of the epistles. :hile the &ospel of %ohn has almost completely a!andoned the expectation of an immediate end of the world# the epistle spea$s of livin" in .the last hour. *2:14+. 'he pro"ression from imminent apocalypticism to an acceptance that the church faced a lon",term future was a feature of Christian development as the first century passed into the second. Fet we are to !elieve that the writer of 1 %ohn .returns to a more primitive eschatolo"ical awareness. *%. ?. ?oulden# The Johannine Epistles# pa"e 1A+. Such patterns of re"ression rarely if ever ta$e place# and no scholar has provided an explanation for why such an anomaly would have occurred here. Certainly# the epistle writer "ives no indication that he is revertin" to somethin" previously a!andoned. Another e3ually impro!a!le re"ression is from Christo,centricity to 'heo,

centricity. 'he &ospel# of course# centers on Christ. 0ut in 1 %ohn &od occupies center sta"e# with %esus a $ind of supportin" player. t is &od .who dwells within us. *A:2=+. 0elievers are .&od-s children. *passim+. Cnowled"e and revelation# imparted throu"h the rite of chrisma *evidently an initiation ceremony of anointin"+ is the "ift of .the ?oly One#. meanin" &od. t is &od who is to appear on the final day# not %esus. .&od is li"ht. *1:/+ says the writer# yet he has not a word for %esus- own declaration: . am the li"ht of the world. *%ohn 4:12+. 'he admonition to .love one another. is constantly reiterated in 1 %ohn# yet such a command is said to come from &od *2 %ohn = and > ma$es this unam!i"uous+# i"norin" the many times the &ospel puts such a recommendation into the mouth of %esus. 'he concept of %esus as a teacher is nowhere in evidence in the epistle# even amid references to the idea of Christian teachin". *:hich does not preclude the occasional creative translation# such as the N@0-s 2:4 and =:21# where a reference to Christ is not supported in the &ree$.+ 9ather# $nowin" and $eepin" the commandments of &od is one of the central issues in 1 and 2 %ohn# and only in the &ospel is this turned into the $eepin" of %esus- commands. 'he epistle writer-s advice to approach &od with re3uests */:1=+ !ecomes# in the &ospel# %esus- appeal to as$ of &od anythin" .in my name. *1>:2A# etc.+. And so on. 'he Christolo"y as a whole is nota!ly more primitive in 1 %ohn# !ut no one explains how the epistle writer could simply rid his mind of more advanced modes of thin$in" and expression# nor why he would perceive it as in his interests to do so. f he feels pro"ressive forces have "one too far with the &ospel# he is far more li$ely to ar"ue for the proper way of interpretin" esta!lished expressions rather than a!andon them alto"ether as thou"h they never existed. Ioes he now disa"ree that %esus is the <o"os or :ord of &od# or that this :ord was made flesh; Apparently so# for in .recastin". the mi"hty Prolo"ue to the &ospel# he has discarded the :ord and its incarnation# he has dropped the references to pre,existence and creation6 and the fi"ure of %ohn the 0aptist has mysteriously disappeared as well. Scholars who ar"ue that the &ospel came first ac$nowled"e that the openin" of 1 %ohn is .a poor imitation. of the &ospel-s Prolo"ue. 0ut the more o!vious explanation is that the openin" passa"e of the epistle is the earlier formulation of certain ideas# a focusin" on the .messa"e. a!out eternal life that the community has received !y revelation# and that the &ospel represents a later sta"e# producin" a %esus who was the proclaimer of that messa"e and an incarnation of the :ord itself. will return to the epistle-s .prolo"ue. presently. (inally# the concept that 1 %ohn has !een formulated to deal with a crisis over the &ospel would have to su""est that it was composed more or less at once# and !y a sin"le writer. Fet this i"nores the state in which we find 1 %ohn# and is inconsistent with the widespread o!servation that it is a layered document put to"ether over time !y multiple authors. 'here is hardly a sin"le compellin" ar"ument to !e made

for the priority of &ospel over epistle. *'he late+ 9aymond @. 0rown# the most prominent Catholic authority on the %ohannine writin"s# !ases his decision that the &ospel came first on several ar"uments *The Epistles of John# p.A1,A# 78,11A+# !ut his !ottom line is the o!servation that the epistles are dealin" entirely with an internal dispute in the community# one producin" a schism# whereas the &ospel involves a lar"er conflict with the outside world of the %ewish esta!lishment. ?e finds it difficult to !elieve that the schism would not have left its mar$ on the &ospel# or even that such a rent community could have survived. Such difficulties# however# are !ased on preconceptions. As much as 21 years may have passed !etween the !asic layers of the epistle and the creation of the &ospel# and any "roup survivin" the earlier split could have "one on to re5uvenate itself# especially since it would now !e the one in possession of the vital new idea sweepin" many !ranches of the Christian movement: that the spiritual Christ had come to earth# .in the flesh.. f the earlier community of the epistle is seen essentially as a %ewish sect with a !elief in a divine Christ# especially an isolated one# wider conflict is less li$ely to play a part6 !ut once out into the new arena of !elief in the Son as a recent historical man# the sta"e is reached at which the "roup will attract the opposition of the mainstream %ewish esta!lishment. n the face of the hostility of the world at lar"e# the issue of any earlier schism at the time of the inception of the historical %esus idea passes into a mur$y and perhaps misunderstood or even for"otten past. 0esides# it is not clear that the communities producin" the epistles and the &ospel stand in sole# direct succession. 'he relationship# as we shall see# may !e more complicated than that. 'he claim of priority for the &ospel of %ohn over the epistles may !e one of the most mis"uided conclusions of New 'estament research# !ut the reason for it is easy to see. f the epistles are first and yet lac$ all sense of the &ospel %esus# all trace of the sophisticated discourses and hi"h formulations of the . am. sayin"s# it then !ecomes difficult not to conclude that the picture of %esus in the (ourth &ospel has no historical roots prior to itself# that it is the uni3ue construct of an isolated community# created for that community-s needs. (or mystic,minded Christians over two millennia# the sayin"s of %esus in %ohn have !een a life, sustainin" treasure# one not easily surrendered as havin" no li$elihood of authenticity. 0y extension# this picture of a specific $ery"ma arisin" out of one "roup-s experience would call into 3uestion the authenticity of all pictures of %esus contained in the &ospels and elsewhere. 'he total lac$ of personality and detail a!out %esus of Nazareth in the epistles of %ohn# if primary# points to the void to !e found in all pre,&ospel circles# a void filled only !y the constructions of the evan"elists.

# John! The Prologue

:e can now proceed with the dissection of the (irst @pistle# startin" with the so, called Prolo"ue. 'hese openin" verses tell of an event which lay at the inception of the sect. Once more we are "iven an insi"ht into the ori"inatin" dynamic of Christ !elief. ?ere is the New @n"lish 0i!le version: .1 t was there from the !e"innin"6 we have heard it# we have seen it with our own eyes6 we loo$ed upon it and felt it with our own hands6 and it is of this we tell. Our theme is the word of life. 2'his life was made visi!le *manifested# phaneroo+6 we have seen it and !ear our testimony6 we here declare to you the eternal life which dwelt with *literally# was with+ the (ather and was made visi!le to us. A:hat we have seen and heard we declare to you# so that you and we to"ether may share in a common life# that life which we share with the (ather and his Son %esus Christ. = And we write this in order that the 5oy of us all may !e complete.. Iespite the sonority of the @n"lish translation# the 3uality of the &ree$ prose is deficient# with "rammatical pro!lems. 'his does not dissuade scholars from seein" this passa"e as a poetic paean to the ministry of %esus# spo$en !y eyewitnessesD or at least represented as such. Nor do they shrin$ from pronouncin" it a distillation from the more famous prolo"ue of the &ospel. 0ut are such views sustaina!le; Com!inin" !oth points in the discussion# we first note that the word for .!e"innin"#. arche# is not used in the same sense as the &ospel Prolo"ue-s .in the !e"innin" was the :ord.. n the &ospel-s hymn to the <o"os# arche refers to the time !efore time# !efore creation# when the divine :ord existed with &od6 this is the doctrine of the pre,existence of the Son. n the openin" of the epistle# on the other hand# arche refers to the !e"innin"s of the sect. 2:2= *and elsewhere+ ma$es this clear: .. . . $eep in your hearts that which you heard at the !e"innin".. 'hat the writer of the epistle would have so adulterated such a lofty thou"ht is hard to !elieve. Nor can we !elieve that he would simply have eliminated the rin"in" concept of %esus as the <o"os# the personified heavenly partner of &od. n verse 1# the .word. of life !ears no such connotation and has its traditional meanin" of .messa"e a!out.. A"ain we meet the u!i3uitous .phaneroo#. to reveal# manifest# "ive evidence of. 'he writer is spea$in" poetically of the revealed messa"e a!out eternal life: he spea$s of it !ein" made visi!le# seen !y the eyes# heard and felt with the hands. 'o ma$e this a reference to those who witnessed %esus- ministry and even touched his person is more than faintly silly6 nowhere in the epistle does the writer appeal to such thin"s and !esides# the pronoun used to refer to what was seen# heard and touched is neuter# somethin" impersonal. Similarly# it is the .eternal life. which .dwelt with. the (ather# not a Son or personal entity. 'he writer is spea$in" of doctrinal !eliefs# not a human man.

:hat we have in this openin" para"raph is the account of an event of revelation# or perhaps a lon"er process sym!olized as a sin"le event# a moment when certain people !elieved that they were receivin" evidence of the offerin" of eternal life. As the Prolo"ue in its present form expresses it *verse A+# that offerin" is envisioned as comin" throu"h the Son# %esus Christ.

The Witness to the Son

<et-s compare the sentiments of the Prolo"ue with an important passa"e in chapter /: .>'his is he who came *or# has come+ throu"h water and !lood: %esus Christ6 not !y the water only# !ut !y the water and the !lood# and the Spirit is the one !earin" witness# !ecause the Spirit is the truth. 8(or there are three who !ear witness# 4the Spirit and the water and the !lood# and these three are in a"reement. 7:e accept the witness of men# !ut the witness of &od is "reater !ecause it is the testimony of &od# which he has "iven concernin" his Son. 11?e who !elieves in the Son of &od has this testimony in his heart# !ut he who dis!elieves &od ma$es him out to !e a liar# !y refusin" to accept &od-s own witness to his Son. 11And this is the witness: that &od has "iven us eternal life# and that this life is found in his Son. 12?e who possesses the Son has that life6 he who does not possess the Son of &od has not that life.. *(rom the N@0 translation# with sli"ht chan"es in the direction of the literal &ree$.+ )uch in$ has !een spilled over the interpretation of elements in this passa"e# particularly verses > to 4. (irst# we must note that the overall effect is devoid of any sense of a life of %esus. t is the witness of &od which provides !elief in the Son# and the fact that the Son is the channel to eternal life. 'here is a total silence on any ministry of %esus and his personal teachin"s a!out himself and a!out eternal life. * f the &ospel had preceded the epistle# it is inconceiva!le that %esusown witness to these thin"s would not !e appealed to here.+ :e should also note that the writer does not present us with the necessity to !elieve that %esus of Nazareth# or any other human man# was the Son. Nor are any historical events appealed to in support of such a proposition. &od-s witness concerns the fact of the Son and the eternal life which is derived from !elief in such a fi"ure# not to any identity he had nor deed he had performed. 'his does not prevent commentators from su""estin" that .water. and .!lood. are to !e interpreted as cryptic references to %esus- !aptism and crucifixion *e.".# 9. @. 0rown# %. ?. ?oulden+. 0ut there is a much less strained explanation for these terms. 'hou"h their exact si"nificance is lost to us today *?oulden la!els them .eni"matic.+# they show all the si"ns of referrin" to sacramental or mystical elements within the community-s !eliefs and practices# throu"h which $nowled"e

of# or !enefits from# the Son are perceived to flow. 'he author points to the three elements of Spirit# water and !lood as !elon"in" to a common cate"ory: all three .!ear witness#. all three are .in a"reement.. Since Spirit clearly !elon"s to the realm of revelation# it follows that water and !lood are also# at least in part# revelatory channels. All three are presented as part of the witness of &od# and &od wor$s throu"h revelation. t is too "reat an anomaly to have the first refer to the manifestation of the prophetic voice and the latter two refer !ac$ to supposed events in the life of the &ospel %esus# a story studiously i"nored throu"hout the epistle. 0esides# how does Christ .come. throu"h the events of his !aptism and crucifixion; *'his is a little too cryptic even !y %ohannine standards.+ 0ut if we ta$e the ver! *which is really an aorist participle: .the one havin" come.+ as a reference to the comin" of the spiritual Christ into the world throu"h his manifestation in &od-s revelationDwhich is a common mode of expression in the New 'estament epistles *see Part 'wo+Dthen verse > is essentially sayin" that %esus Christ has !een revealed throu"h the rites *;+ of water and !lood. 'hese are li$ely some form of purification ritual and a sacred meal. 'o"ether with the "eneral activity of the Spirit# which is one of the community-s hallmar$s *see =:1f+# such thin"s constitute &od-s witness. &od has revealed the Son and the availa!ility of eternal life throu"h him. 'he writer of this passa"e# as of the Prolo"ue# moves in a milieu of divine revelation# not of the preservation of the teachin"s and deeds of a recent historical man. As we shall see further# the whole concept of apostolic tradition "oin" !ac$ to a %esus is missin" from this epistle# as are any Apostles themselves. Note that 7a is simply a comparative to 7!# a "eneral rule# sayin": .:e are in the ha!it of acceptin" testimony from men# so how much more should we accept testimony from &od;. Certainly# apostolic testimony is not included in the witnesses enumerated in the previous verses# nor does it appear anywhere else. :e mi"ht also note that the writer in verse > ma$es a point of stressin" that the .!lood. must !e included# with the clear implication that others are resistin" its inclusion. 'his precludes it !ein" a reference to an historical crucifixion# for who would deny such an event or its central si"nificance; *'he issue of docetism is nowhere in evidence in this letter# despite some scholars- attempts to introduce it: see !elow.+ f# however# the term relates to a rite that reflects a later layer of theolo"ical development a!out the spiritual Son *which we shall see+# we are a"ain loo$in" at an entirely inspirational situation# a scene of revelation on a sta"e which lac$s any central character of %esus of Nazareth. 'his a!sence of any historical %esus at the sect-s !e"innin"s is stri$in"ly clear in 2:28: .'he anointin" which you received from him *&od+ stays with you6 you need no

other teacher# !ut you learn all you need to $now from his anointin".. 'his anointin" *chrisma+ seems to !e an initiation rite for entry into the sect# and no Christian writer who $new of a teachin" %esus# or who possessed any information whatever derived from him throu"h oral or apostolic tradition# could possi!ly have said such a thin". Now that we have esta!lished that this is a sect which relies entirely on mystical revelation# we can "o !ac$ to the openin" Prolo"ue and read the sentence which follows it: .?ere is the messa"e we heard from him and pass on to you: that &od is li"ht# and in him there is no dar$ness at all.. *1:/+ 'his fundamental truth a!out &od# which is one of the core !eliefs of the %ohannine community# is thus to !e seen as somethin" which has !een imparted !y revelation. 'he .from him. may refer either to &od or the spiritual Son *commentators are split as to its antecedent+. 0ut that it refers to the teachin" of %esus in a ministry on earth cannot !e supported. Nor does the &ospel of %ohn contain any such sayin"6 rather# there %esus says that he is the li"ht. 'he latter is the more advanced idea# assi"nin" 3ualities ori"inally !elon"in" to &od to the intermediary fi"ure# and is a further pointer to the priority of epistle over &ospel.

$ayers in # John
:e must now "o on to the 3uestion of strata in 1 %ohn and how the epistle was put to"ether. Some scholars *e.".# ?oulden# op.cit.# O-Neill# op.cit.# Cenneth &rayston# The Johannine Epistles+ have concluded that the epistle is not a unity# !ut that it reflects more than one sta"e of thin$in" and conflict within the community. )uch of chapter = and parts of / are the product of a later sta"e# and even within the first three chapters sentences have !een inserted which do not fit their context. As part of the ar"ument for stratification in 1 %ohn# we will !rin" in the 3uestion of what were the views of the dissidents who are attac$ed in the letter as liars and antichrists# and whether they are the same throu"hout the epistle. At least some of these dissidents *the ones in chapter 2+ have stomped off to operate independently of the writer-s "roup. As examples of insertions which stic$ out li$e prover!ial sore thum!s# consider these: .. . . and we are !ein" cleansed from every sin !y the !lood of %esus his Son. *1:8d+. .?e *%esus Christ+ is himself the propitiation for our sins# not our sins only !ut the sins of all the world. *2:2+. Such sentiments clash with ideas found in ad5oinin" sentences. n 1:7# the earlier

layer told readers that .if we confess our sins# he *&od+ is 5ust# and will for"ive our sins and cleanse us from every $ind of wron".. At this earlier sta"e# the Son was apparently not perceived as involved in for"ivin" sin. 2:1 presents a %esus in heaven .pleadin" our cause with the (ather#. !ut as an advocate# not as a !lood propitiation. 'his is not the only anomaly on the su!5ect of sinfulness. At several points# the writer seems to hold the view that the true child of &od is without sin# that he is incapa!le of it *as in A:7+6 yet at others he spea$s of for"iveness for sins committed# as in 2:1# and even cautions that claims to sinlessness are .self, deception. *1:4+. 'wo prominent references to Christ in the epistle also seem to interrupt the flow and context: .:hoever claims to !e dwellin" in him *&od+ ou"ht to conduct himself as Christ *e*einos+ did *literally# ou"ht to wal$ as Christ himself wal$ed+. *2:>+. . t is !y this we $now what love is: that Christ *e*einos+ laid down his life for us. *A:1>+. 0oth distur! the flow of passa"es which spea$ of the !eliever-s relationship to &od or to his fellow sect mem!er. *)ore on !oth these verses later.+ Christ seems to have !een added as an enlar"ement on the !asic ideas# the later feature of an editor who views Christ as a "ood example of the points the previous writer was ma$in"# in which no Son was mentioned. n passin"# we can note that in !oth passa"es 3uoted a!ove# as well as several others# Christ is referred to o!li3uely !y the pronoun .e*einos#. meanin" .that one.. 'his is peculiar# and no one has provided a convincin" explanation for it. )y own instinct is that it !e"an as a way of referrin" to a specific part of &od# that emanation of him which served as intermediary6 in other words# the spiritual Son. t has an impersonal character out of $eepin" with the idea of a recent historical person or distinct human personality. 'his is one of the characteristics of this epistle# that there often seems to !e no sharp distinction !etween &od and Christ# a curiosity encountered in other New 'estament epistles. 0ut we need to define the strata in 1 %ohn more !roadly. 'here seems to !e a pro"ression in nature and de"ree concernin" the involvement of the Son L %esus Christ in the topics under discussion# and it would ma$e sense to see in this a reflection of the evolution of ideas a!out him# perhaps over the course of a few decades *thou"h we really have no way of 5ud"in" the len"th of time+. 'he latest sta"e *which pro!a!ly included some evolution in itself+ would comprise those views which spea$ of .cleansin" !y his !lood. *1:8d+# .a propitiation for our sins. *2:2 and =:11+# the Son .who appeared to undo the Ievil-s wor$. *A:4!+. t would have !e"un with the idea that .%esus Christ has come in the flesh. *=:2+ and include the verses loo$ed at a!ove# that Christ had

conducted himself in a certain way which was exemplary# and had .laid down his life. in some fashion. Stran"ely# this is never specified as crucifixion# nor does a resurrection ever appear in the ideas of those who contri!uted to this letter. :hen we move !ac$ !eyond this latest sta"e we find the letter revertin" to less specific ideas a!out the Son# ideas which do not involve sacrifice or incarnation. 'o clarify the distinction !etween these two levels# we can compare the dissidents who are spo$en of in chapter 2 with those in chapter =.

T%o Sets of &issidents

<et-s loo$ at the ones in chapter = first: .10ut do not trust any and every spirit# my friends6 test the spirits# to see whether they are from &od# for amon" those who have "one out into the world there are many prophets falsely inspired. 2'his is how we may reco"nize the Spirit of &od: every spirit which ac$nowled"es *confesses+ that %esus Christ has come in the flesh is from &od# Aand every spirit which does not thus ac$nowled"e %esus is not from &od. . .. *(rom the N@0 translation+ ?ere the dissidents are called .prophets falsely inspired.. 'hey are moved !y .spirits. which do not confess that %esus Christ has come in the flesh. *'o .confess. is to declare an article of faith.+ <et-s examine this .false inspiration. for a moment. n tryin" to understand what could possi!ly !e meant here# scholars often raise the specter of docetism# the early second century .heresy. which stated that Christ had not !een a real flesh and !lood human !ein" !ut only one who seemed to !e such. 0ut of docetism there is no su""estion here. 'he issue is not phrased in these terms# and none of the ar"uments for or a"ainst this doctrine are ever alluded to# somethin" unli$ely if the writer is contestin" such a position. At the very least we would expect him to ma$e some "eneral reference here to the human life of %esus6 !ut he does not. Nor is there any su""estion that the dissidents are rene"ades re5ectin" a lon",held view# such as would !e the case with docetists. 9ather# they simply do not confess the !elief the writer holds. 'hese dissidents are rivals# not apostates. :e cannot even !e sure that a schism is involved here. t may simply !e a case of competin" con"re"ations holdin" differin" views. Another thin" to note is that .%esus Christ. in the writer-s mind cannot simply e3ual .%esus of Nazareth#. since this would ma$e the statement a tautolo"y: .%esus of Nazareth *a flesh and !lood person+ has come in the flesh.. As phrased# the %esus Christ this writer has in mind must !e the spiritual Son# the pre,existent divine fi"ure in heaven. 'his is his startin" point. ?e is ma$in" a statement a!out his heavenly Christ: that he has come in the flesh. n other words# he has !een incarnated# simply that. 'he writer seems to !e tellin" us that some Christians are

"oin" a!out claimin" that the heavenly %esus Christ was not incarnated. @ven more startlin"# in =:/ the writer reveals that to these deniers of the incarnation .the world listens.. n 2 %ohn 8,11# we can see that some Christian circles welcome such .deceivers. into their houses and "ive them "reetin". ?ow could such a radical re5ection of traditional !elief and history itself "ain this $ind of hearin"; :hat-s more# this incarnation which the writer !elieves in: how is it $nown; Ioes he appeal to historical memory# to authorized channels "oin" !ac$ to %esus; ?ow could he fail to support his position !y ma$in" at least a passin" reference to the record of the past# to apostolic tradition and the human witness to %esus of Nazareth; nstead# the doctrine that %esus Christ has come in the flesh is the product of true spirits from &od# namely revelation6 while those who deny such a doctrine are la!orin" under false spirits which the writer la!els .antichrist. *=:=+. t would seem that the !elief in %esus- incarnation had nothin" to do with verifia!le history or esta!lished tradition. (or competin" views of the .truth. this is a level playin" field. Now consider the dissidents who are attac$ed in chapter 2# the .antichrists. who .went out from our company. *2:17+: .21Fou# no less than they# are amon" the initiated6 this is the "ift of the ?oly One# and !y it you have all $nowled"e . . . 22:ho is the liar; :ho !ut he that denies that %esus is the Christ; ?e is Antichrist# for he denies !oth the (ather and the Son . . .. *N@0+ 'hese people deny .that %esus is the Christ. *hoti +esous ou* estin ho Christos+. A"ain# we must consider what this means. 'he traditional interpretation has usually !een: %esus of Nazareth was the )essiah# a statement a!out an historical situation. 0ut there are serious pro!lems with this proposed meanin". (irst# the present tense is used# not a past one# which certainly to our minds would !e the natural# even unavoida!le mode of expression. *Not even the scholars who interpret the phrase this way are a!le to avoid it.+ A"ain# there is no drawin" on &ospel details or apostolic tradition to ma$e a defence of the statement. 0ut the insurmounta!le o!5ection is this: these .deniers#. li$e the later ones mentioned a!ove# still seem to !e part of the wider Christian community. .Fou no less than they are amon" the initiated#. says the writer in 2:21. Another level playin" field. 0ut how can this !e; 'he !ottom line for inclusion in a Christian sect would surely have to !e !elief in the proposition that %esus had !een the Christ. Such deniers would no lon"er !e Christians. n fact# 2:22-s .:ho is the liar;. implies that these very opponents had accused the writer,s "roup of !ein" liars# to which the writer has retorted that they are the liars. :hat Christian "roup could !e accused of .lyin". !y another Christian "roup for declarin" that %esus of

Nazareth had !een the )essiah; f it were claimed that the dissident "roup no lon"er re"ards itself as Christian# this would mean that they had simply a!andoned their faith# and the whole issue would have ta$en on a different si"nificance for the writer. 'hey would !e apostates# cast out and no lon"er even to !e !othered with. 0ut the writer !lames them for leavin" *2:17+. 'he tone he adoptsDincludin" callin" them .antichrists.Dis that they are now a rival "roup with opposin" views. 'hey have !e""ed to differ from his doctrine# not a!andoned somethin" which an entire movement has held for over half a century. No matter how you loo$ at it# .%esus is the Christ. cannot mean .%esus of Nazareth was the )essiah.. 0efore unravelin" this puzzle# we can note that the dispute involved here cannot !e the same as the one addressed in chapter =. ?ere there is no mention of any issue a!out .comin" in the flesh#. nor is there concern over true and false spirits. )oreover# the two are incompati!le# especially if "iven the conventional interpretations. t is not uncommon to find a commentator seein" docetism as involved in chapter = and the denial of %esus of Nazareth as the )essiah in chapter 2. Fet how can the same "roup which earlier has re5ected the historical %esus as !ein" the Christ "o on to concern themselves over whether this non,Christ was a real human !ein"; :hat# then# is the meanin" of 2:22; 'he declaration that .%esus is the Christ. has the rin" of a confession of the type we meet in 9omans 11:4,7: .'his means the word of faith which we proclaim. f on your lips is the confession# %esus *is+ <ord . . . then you will find salvation.. Paul places such a declaration entirely in the realm of present faith# not history. :e can compare it to the confession of emperor worship that .Caesar is <ord.. ?ere Caesar is an esta!lished "iven# as is .%esus. for Paul. 0oth statements are a confession made toward a "iven fi"ure# not a claim a!out someone in the past. Paul ac$nowled"es that .%esus is the <ord of us#. as the 9omans do of Caesar# whoever he may currently !e. @ither declaration has the effect of addressin" itself directly to the divinity# as if to say: .Fou are <ordM. n the same way# the phrase in 1 %ohn 2:22 declares that %esus# a "iven spiritual fi"ure and Son of &od# is the Anointed One# the )essiah of &od-s promise *a declaration which would not have fitted popular %ewish conception+. 'he term .)essiah. in this period had ta$en on a wealth of emotional connotation over and a!ove its traditional si"nificance# and this included the meanin" of .Savior.. And so we mi"ht compare the phrase to the modern declaration .%esus Saves.. n the milieu of this early layer of 1 %ohn# we can expand its si"nificance to this: . !elieve in a %esus who is the Son of &od *see also =:1/+ and our Anointed Savior.. Compare this with A:2A# .to have faith in the name of his Son %esus Christ#. which

is another way of sayin" that the !eliever ac$nowled"es him and his power. 'he issue in the earlier schism# then# !oils down to whether such a !ein" exists or not. n fact# the writer "oes on in 2:2A,2/ to enlar"e on this very meanin"# that the dispute is over the existence of the Son: .'o deny the Son is to !e without the (ather6 to ac$nowled"e the Son is to have the (ather too . . . you will yourselves dwell in the Son and also in the (ather.. Not only do we "et the sense here that the writer is spea$in" of two divine persona"es in heaven# he is statin" the core of his "roup-s reli"ious faith. t is simple .Christ !elief.. 'hat there is a Son# that he is the avenue to the (ather# !oth for $nowled"e and for intercession. 'o dwell in one is to dwell in the other. As /:1 phrases it# .?e who !elieves that %esus is the Christ is a child of &od.. 'his is the !ottom,line feature of the .Christ. movement: the existence of the Anointed Son# the intermediary channel to a transcendent &od# the avenue of salvation. (or such sects# the Christ is not a human @nd,time ruler# !ut a divine entity# pre,existent with &od in heaven. :ithout him# humanity does not reach &od. 'his -%ewishsectarian version of the Son is a reflection of the !enchmar$ !elief of the ?ellenistic a"e.

Christian and Pre'Christian Strata

Now we can address the puzzlin" 3uestion as$ed a!out this earlier sta"e of the letter. ?ow can there !e a faction which declares !oth the (ather and the Son indispensa!le# and a faction which apparently denies the very existence of the Son Dand yet !oth claim to !e le"itimate representatives of the sect# !oth claim to !e holdin" to the truth and call the other faction .liars.; 0oth "roups have passed throu"h the rite referred to as .chrisma.. 'his .anointin" !y the ?oly One. *i.e.# &od+ is the mar$ of mem!ership in the sect# no dou!t from the !e"innin". 'hrou"h it# &od has imparted .all $nowled"e. *2:21+# .all you need to $now. *2:28+. 0oth "roups underwent it# and !oth are currently appealin" to it. t follows# then# that the doctrine that .%esus is the Christ. cannot have !een part of the .$nowled"e. laid out at the anointin". f it were# the writer-s "roup could hardly !e called liars for upholdin" it# and the dissidents could hardly maintain that they were .still amon" the initiated. if they had re5ected it. 'he actions of the dissidents imply that the writer-s "roup# !y declarin" .%esus is the Christ#. have "one !eyond the anointin" and the doctrines em!odied in it. 'he only deduction that can !e made here is that the ori"inal expression of the sect did not entail the faith declaration em!odied in .%esus is the Christ.. n other words# the sect ori"inally #i# not ha-e a .on. 'his is further implied# as we have seen# !y the little diatri!e the writer directs at the dissidents in 2:2A: .'o deny the Son is to !e without the (ather6 to ac$nowled"e the Son is to have the (ather too..

s this possi!le; <et-s try to loo$ at the first part of the epistle in a different li"ht. f we ta$e 1:1 to 2:18 as a !loc$ *which it is+# we find that with the exception of a few phrases# the thou"ht is entirely theocentric. 'he focus is firmly upon &od6 he is the channel of eternal life *1:2+# he is the .li"ht. *1:/+. :ith him# !elievers wal$ in the li"ht *1:8a+6 his are the commands they are exhorted to $eep *2:A,=+. n verses 2:12,1=# which are usually translated as a series of metrical lines# since they have a distinct poetic style# there is not a word a!out Christ: sins are for"iven for &od-s sa$e6 readers $now him who has !een from the !e"innin"# namely &od6 .&od-s word is in you.. )astery over Satan is the central ethical concern. f we remove from our !loc$ the four references to Christ# three of which# as we have seen# have the air of insertions since they are reco"nized to clash with their contexts# we are left with an extended passa"e which han"s to"ether in style and content: at the !e"innin" eternal life was revealed to !e .in the (ather#. we can wal$ in the same li"ht as he does# we $now him !y o!eyin" his commands# !y lovin" our !rothers# !y masterin" the evil one# !y re5ectin" the "odless world. n such a picture# the references to Christ are totally incidental and often inconsistent with surroundin" statements: 1:8d# 2:1!# 2:2# 2:>. :e can even include 1:Ac# near the end of the Prolo"ue: .*that life which we share with the (ather+ an# his .on Jesus Christ#. for it too has the air of an addendum. 'he Prolo"ue up to that point has made no mention of the Son6 indeed# he is nota!ly missin" in the core phrase of the Prolo"ue: .:e here declare to you the eternal life which was in the (ather and was revealed to us.. (or a document which is so concerned a!out those who deny the Son# there is precious little a!out him in this entire openin" declaration. So what do we have here; :e have an initial stratum which is entirely %ewish6 pre, Christian. t is a type of %udaism tin"ed with dualism# of the $ind found at Jumran# !ut also elsewhere# ultimately "oin" !ac$ to Persian ideas: li"ht vs. dar$ness# truth vs. error. 'he concept that .&od is li"ht. su""ests ?ellenistic %ewish circles. 'here are children of &od and children of the Ievil. 'his is a sect which is detached from the outside world: a world evil# "odless and hostile. n this picture the Son is an afterthou"ht and 3uite unnecessary. ?e is a new idea "rafted on in patchwor$ fashion# imperfectly inte"rated with earlier ideas. 2:1! views him as an advocate in heaven. 'he latter part of chapter 2 declares that one can reach and have the (ather only throu"h the Son. All this is a reflection of the !asic function of the Son as an intermediary to a transcendent &od. n a later third layer# as reflected in 1:8d and 2:2# that function ta$es on a dramatic turn: the Son is now a propitiation for sins# cleansin" them !y his !lood6 this is within the new context of the Son havin" come in the flesh *=:2+# an article of faith $nown throu"h the Spirit. Iwellin" in &od has also come to !e measured !y a new standard: conductin" oneself as Christ himself had done *2:>+. 'his latter verse is

extremely va"ue and li$ely a late addition. Other parts of the epistle mirror the same mix of elements. 'he initial pre, Christian stratum# with no Son# survives in 2:24,A:2 which spea$s of &od-s anticipated appearance at the Parousia# not %esus-. :e are &od-s children and when he arrives we shall !e li$e him. n A:7f criteria are offered for determinin" who is a child of &od and who a child of the devil. 9eaders are exhorted to approach &od with confidence# to .o!tain from him whatever we as$. *A:21,22+. :ithin such passa"es# insertions a!out the Son create a dis5ointed and detourin" effect. 'he necessity to "ive alle"iance to the Son *e.".# A:2A+ comes from the next sta"e of thin$in"# for such necessity is lac$in" in other passa"es which discuss the !eliever-s relationship with &od. Amon" the insertions from the third sta"e are A:A and /# A:4!# and the famous A:1>. 'his declaration# .that Christ laid down his life for us and we in turn are !ound to lay down our lives for our !rothers#. is painfully out of place here# for the text "oes on in verse 18 to descend with a dull thud from this lofty idea to the remar$ that if a man has enou"h to live on he should "ive to a !rother in need. 'his latter verse# in its tone and motifs# follows lo"ically from verses 1= and 1/. Some scholars *?oulden# op.cit.# p.111 and &rayston# op.cit.# p.11A+ have reco"nized the unhappy se3uence of ideas here and perhaps need to !e more coura"eous in their implication that A:1> may have !een lac$in" in the ori"inal text.

The Schism
0ut let-s return to the picture of schism contained in the early part of the letter# !etween the forces of the ori"inal sta"e 1 and those of sta"e 2. t now !ecomes clear. A "reat dispute has arisen !etween those who adhere to the initial %ewish outloo$ from the sect-s !e"innin"s# a faith !ased entirely on &od# and those who reflect the new development in reli"ious thin$in" which was permeatin" fields far !eyond the sect-s own: the existence of the intermediary Son. 'he writer-s "roup is convinced that the Son is the avenue to the (ather6 to !e without him is to !e without the (ather. 0oth "roups claim to !e le"itimate representatives of the sect# !ut the "roup holdin" to the traditional views have ."one out#. since they cannot accept the new doctrine. t mi"ht !e o!5ected that the .pro"ressive. "roup would !e on sha$y "round if they were pushin" a view which was not part of the ori"inal .$nowled"e. !estowed !y the rite of anointin"# if it was not part of the doctrine revealed .from the !e"innin".. 0ut that it did not "o !ac$ to the !e"innin" is su""ested !y the very fact that the writer does not specifically ma$e such a claim in support of his position. 2:2= does not really fill this !ill# for it is too allusive: . f you $eep in your hearts that which you heard at the !e"innin" . . . *then+ you will dwell in the Son and also in the (ather..

Aside from the fact that what was heard is not spelled out# the point is not presented as an ar"ument to prove the "roup-s position a"ainst their opponents. 9ather# it is a $ind of -consolation- statement# confirmin" that what was heard will ena!le the reader to dwell in the Son and (ather and receive the promised eternal life. A:11 actually states the messa"e *or at least part of it+ which was heard at the !e"innin": .that we should love one another.. 'he fact that the writer does not similarly state that the doctrine of the Son was part of the ori"inal messa"e is tellin". suspect that what is happenin" here is that he is .readin" !ac$. the su!se3uent development of !elief in an Anointed Son into the revelation spo$en of in the Prolo"ue and findin" a "eneral support for it there. @ven when he "oes on to spea$ of what has !een learned at the initiation# he remains nota!ly unspecific. 'here must have !een little if anythin" of real su!stance for the writer to appeal to in support of his side of the schism which the community has 5ust suffered. 'his in itself would lead us to consider that the phrase in 1:Ac lin$in" the .Son %esus Christ. to the (ather is an addition to the initial version of the epistle-s Prolo"ue# !y someone who su!se3uently chose to see the Son as implied in the sect-s ori"inal revelation. Such a practice of readin" later ideas into earlier writin"s and of constantly updatin" those writin"s was anythin" !ut unusual in the documentary history of Christianity. A further o!5ection mi"ht !e made over the term .antichrist. *2:14# =:A+. f the doctrine of the Son is relatively new# at least in its acceptance !y a formal "roup within the community# how can the writer spea$ as thou"h the antichrist *meanin" the one destined to !e a"ainst the )essiah+ was a traditional part of the con"re"ation-s expectations; 0ut the idea of a .man of lawlessness#. an a"ent of Satan *or Satan himself+# was indeed lon"standin" in %ewish apocalyptic expectation# a fi"ure who would oppose &od-s wor$ and that of his )essiah at the @nd,time esta!lishment of the Cin"dom. 'he writer may !e recastin" him in a new application to the spiritual Christ and Son# with a new name. n fact# there is no record of the term .antichrist. !efore 1 %ohn# and scholarship "enerally re"ards the term as invented !y the writer of this epistle or the "roup he represents.

The End of the Epistle

A curious effect is created !y the concludin" section of the epistle. (ollowin" the dramatic dispute of the third layer over whether %esus Christ has come in the flesh *=:1f+# the rest of the letter "radually loses si"ht of it and the final !loc$ from /:1A to the end reverts entirely to the middle stratum. ?ere ideas of incarnation and propitiation are definitely lac$in". 'he sentiment returns to ."ivin" alle"iance to the Son of &od. and to the idea that the Son $eeps the true child of &od safe from the evil one. A $ey verse is /:21:

.:e $now that the Son of &od has *is+ come and "iven us understandin" to $now him who is real6 indeed we are in him who is real# since we are in his Son %esus Christ.. ?ere the role of the Son is the classic one of 9evealer. ?e "ives understandin" to $now &od *.him who is real.+. 'he ver! .has come. is in the present tense in the &ree$# implyin" an on"oin" condition. 'here is no sense here of the declaration in =:2# which is in the perfect# that %esus Christ has come in the flesh. 'he Son is simply the newly,revealed channel to &od# which represents the fundamental inceptive sta"e of Christ !elief. t is this revelation of &od which confers eternal life# the hallmar$ of the %ohannine community-s soteriolo"y *concept of salvation+ throu"hout all the sta"es of its documentation. 'hus# in this one little disordered 5um!le of an epistle# we can discern the fundamental course of early Christian development. :e can trace one "roup-s pro"ression throu"h the ascent which the spiritual Christ followed from soil to full flowerin". :hen this sect was formed# it was without a Son. &od himself revealed that he was li"ht# that people could !ecome his children and "ain eternal life !y withdrawin" from the world# o!eyin" his commands and lovin" one another. No dou!t the sect expected that the arrival of the Cin"dom would not !e lon" in comin". At some point# the idea that &od had a divine Son who served as the mediator of this revelation# and thus the avenue to salvation# too$ hold and crystallized in the minds of some portion of the community# to !e vi"orously resisted !y others. Such an idea may have !een the result of outside influences and it could well have filtered in over time# discussed and studied !y certain mem!ers of the sect until it reached a point of critical mass# to divide the community in schism. (urther on down the road# the "roup which had adopted the new Son came to !elieve that he had !een incarnated# that he had .come in the flesh#. and whether at this point or a little later * suspect it was later+# this comin" in flesh entailed the idea that he had died as a sacrifice for sins. Now a new schism *if the two sides in chapter = are from the same community+ resulted with those who resisted the idea of incarnation. 'he community still views %esus as the revealer of &od# it maintains the concepts of sta"e two# !ut it has added the extra dimension of a propitiatory sacrifice in a life lived .in flesh.. ?ow much this idea of a life .lived. and .laid down for others. was assi"ned to a specific point in history is impossi!le to say# since no historical allusions are ever made. suspect it was still indeterminate# to solidify into recent history only when the next sta"e was reached: the &ospel of %ohn. have not addressed the possi!ility that the .in flesh. *en sar*i+ of =:2 still inha!its the mythical arena seen in Paul and other early epistles# rather than an actual incarnation to earth. 'he effect# however# would !e little different.

2 %ohn is also a product of the later stratum# for it too concerns the schism over whether .%esus Christ has come in the flesh. *verse 8+. ?ere the writer warns his readers not to receive into their houses those who do not stand !y *.dwell in.+ this .doctrine a!out the Christ.. A %ohn# while it specifies no doctrine# is almost certainly concerned with the same schism.

*From Epistle to (ospel

As %esus spea$s a!out himself in the &ospel of %ohn# he represents a personification of the second stratum of 1 %ohn. 'his is a revealer Son# thou"h he has attracted to himself some of the attri!utes "iven to &od in the epistle: . am the li"ht of the world.. %esus personifies the $nowled"e of &od that comes from &od: . am the !read of life.. No one can come to the (ather except throu"h %esus# the Son. As in the middle stratum of 1 %ohn# salvation is achieved !y receivin" and acceptin" the $nowled"e a!out &od and a!out his revealer# %esus: . am the resurrection and the life. ?e who !elieves in me# even thou"h he die# shall live.. 'he &ospel of %ohn has no teachin"s !eyond %esus- proclamation a!out himself# for he has nothin" else to say. ?e is the Son# the li"ht# eternal life# the livin" !read# the livin" water# the door of the sheepfold6 he is the one come down from heaven# he is the revealer of the (ather. 'here are no ethics. 'o .love one another. is little more than an in,house rule# not a universal moral dictum6 11:A/ shows that he is simply advocatin" love amon" his followers# so that .all will $now that you are my disciples.. 'hose disciples are part of an elect# an idea which emer"es re"ularly# as in 1A:1 and 18:>: . have made thy name $nown to the men whom thou didst "ive me out of the world.. 'here is little sense of a universal salvation. ndeed# %esus- ministry amounts to little more than standin" up in the mar$etplace or in the syna"o"ue and declarin" to all the world the most mystical# pretentious pronouncements a!out himself. 0ut they !ecome accepta!le if we view such declarations as "oin" !ac$ to the theolo"y of earlier "roups a!out the o!5ect of their worship: the mythical and mystical Son and :ord# somethin" which was a purely spiritual entity# the mediatorial channel to &od. t is only when they are placed in the mouth of a human %esus wal$in" throu"h Palestine that they ta$e on this air of unreality# this ludicrous me"alomania. 'hese passa"es in the &ospel of %ohn which contain the .teachin"s#. %esus- self, declarations# have lon" !een reco"nized as a distinct layer of material. Scholars have always stru""led to see this %ohannine interpretation of %esus as a later development# imposed on traditions a!out the historical fi"ure which are more li$e those of the synoptic &ospels. 0ut would su""est that the situation is the reverse. 'he distinctive %ohannine material# in some form# would once have stood alone. t represented an earlier phase of the community-s faith# a faith !ased on !elief in &od-s revelation# in $nowled"e transmitted throu"h the spiritual Son. n other

words# the .teachin"s. were once the community-s pronouncements a!out the intermediary Son as a 9evealer entity. *:e see them in an incipient state in the middle layer of 1 %ohn# and we can compare them with sentiments in documents li$e the Odes of Solomon: see Article No. =.+ Ender the influence of synoptic ideas which came to it from outside# the %ohannine community eventually 5umped onto the new historical %esus !andwa"on. 'he &ospel of %ohn !orrowed its historical dimensions from elsewhere. 'he miracles were ta$en from a distinct source which is somehow related to# thou"h not identical with# )ar$-s miracle collection *scholars call it the .Si"ns Source.+. Part of their function in the &ospel is to provide some proof for the claims %esus ma$es a!out himself. 'he evan"elist also needed to "ive the community its own special lin$ !ac$ to the new historical founder# and so he invented the 0eloved Iisciple# a fi"ure later identified with )ar$-s apostle %ohn. Any si"n of such a fi"ure is lac$in" in the %ohannine epistles. 'he movements in %esus- ministry have also !een superimposed# !ut the editor here either did not care or did not possess the a!ilities of a )ar$ to create the sense of an ordered narrative. %esus wanders !ac$ and forth without purpose !etween &alilee and %erusalem. 'here is none of the synoptic pattern which creates a sense of evolution to the ministry# none of the ascendin" tension as %esus ma$es his way inexora!ly toward %erusalem and his fate. %ohn-s ministry is simply a loose structure on which to han" the pronouncements of %esus as the channel to &od# the vehicle of salvation throu"h proper !elief. 'he %ohannine concept of salvation re3uired nota!le cuts to the synoptic picture. %esus could not !e represented as redeemin" throu"h his death and resurrection# and so there is no @ucharist in the (ourth &ospel# no esta!lishment of a sacrificial rite at a <ast Supper. 'he passa"e re"ularly pointed to as .em!odyin" eucharistic teachin"#. >:/1,/4# does no such thin". :hen %esus styles himself the livin" !read# the !read of life# and declares that to possess eternal life one must eat his flesh and drin$ his !lood# this is in no way connected with his death. 'his is not sacrificed !lood# not slain flesh. n fact# the flesh and !lood of these verses */1c,/>+ are an enlar"ement on the previous metaphor of !read alone# and remain within its parameters: they are additional sym!ols representin" the in"estion of divine $nowled"e# imparted throu"h the person of %esus. 'he idea is tied full circle !y verse /4: .'his is the !read that came down from heaven.. 'he evan"elist has introduced these elements# !ut he has $ept them in the service of the !asic %ohannine soteriolo"y: salvation throu"h revelation# throu"h %esus as a 9evealer fi"ure# not a sacrificial one. *Some %ohannine scholars# such as 9. @. 0rown GThe Epistles of John# p.74H# su""est that there are .minor indications. of a sacrificial and vicarious view of %esus- death# !ut these are far from statin" an atonement

doctrine and can !e otherwise interpreted# as 0rown himself points out Gn.228H.+ 'his is not to say that the terms of the metaphor itself# flesh and !lood# were not derived from that source in which they did si"nify elements of a sacrifice: the irresisti!le story of %esus of Nazareth created !y the synoptic evan"elists# whose primary feature was the sacrificial Christ of the Pauline cult. At some point the %ohannine community with its spiritual 9evealer Son had come in contact with the )ar$an %esus and found itself compelled to incorporate him. 0ut it was determined to do so on its own terms. 'hat determination is nowhere so evident as in the handlin" of %esus- passion and death. 'here is no doctrine in %ohn a!out atonement for sin or any redemptive conse3uence to %esus- crucifixion. %esus is not even allowed to suffer. *Not even emotionally: there is no &ethsemane scene in %ohn.+ ?is raisin" up on the cross is an .ascension#. a "lorification *12:2A+. t is the ultimate support for the proof of his claims# the ultimate miracle. %esus is in control throu"hout the trial and crucifixion# !earin" all in su!lime detachment# fulfillin" what must !e .accomplished. !y the will of his (ather. Note that %ohn refuses to introduce Simon of Cyrene# declarin" that %esus .carried his own cross. *17:18+# nor does %esus utter the desolate cry on the cross put into his mouth !y )ar$. %ohn also presents the crucifixion as a .liftin" up. of the Son into full view of the world# so that they can see him and !elieve. .'his Son of )an must !e lifted up as the serpent was lifted up !y )oses in the wilderness# so that everyone who has faith in him may in him possess eternal life. *A:1=,1/+. And notice how the evan"elist deftly avoids any idea of atonement in these references to %esus- death: .&od loved the world so much that he "ave his only Son# that everyone who has faith in him may not die !ut have eternal life. *A:1>+. Or# .'here is no "reater love than this# that a man should lay down his life for his friends. *1/:1A+. f %ohn had any sympathy for the concept of the Atonement# this is where he would have expressed it. *Note that the last sayin" is not offered in any context a!out %esusdeath.+ 'he strata of %ohannine 9evealer and synoptic Crucified One have not !een inte"rated. ?avin" analyzed the &ospel of %ohn# in one of its main aspects# as a $ind of personification of the middle stratum of 1 %ohn# a presentation of %esus as a 9evealer Son rather than a sacrificial atoner# what then do we ma$e of the fact that the &ospel fails to reflect any of the content from the final layer of the epistle# those insertions which specify %esus as a propitiation for sin; n fact# as have pointed out# the &ospel seems to have "one out of its way to avoid such an idea. And yet it is not li$ely that the evan"elist would have discarded such a doctrine if it was an esta!lished part of his own community-s thin$in". Ioes this compromise the seemin"ly compellin" ar"ument made earlier that the epistle must precede the &ospel;

'he solution lies in a principle which constantly rears its head in the study of early Christianity# one scholars have come increasin"ly to realize: that relationships !etween strands of thin$in"# !etween documents and communities# are far more complex and su!tle than can !e understood and conveyed !y any academic presentation from the vanta"e point of our time. %udith <ieu has expressed the view *The Theology of the Johannine Epistles# p.1>,21+ that .the @pistles imply more than one community owin" some loyalty to the %ohannine tradition#. and that .!oth the &ospel and (irst @pistle are the outcome of a len"thy process of development within %ohannine thou"ht.. Notin" also that a few recent scholars have started to swin" away from the position that 1 %ohn "rew out of the &ospel# she su""ests that @pistle and &ospel may !e to some extent independent# each separately .crystallizin" out of %ohannine traditions in different circumstances.. :e must conclude that the &ospel does not simply stand in direct line from the final version of 1 %ohn. t may !e the product of a parallel community# with a different set of emphases. t may !e that the very latest parts of the first epistle overlap the earliest phase of the &ospel# and almost certain that references to %esus- !lood sacrifice are derived from a different line of thin$in" than that of the evan"elist. * have !een referrin" to the author of %ohn in the sin"ular# !ut in reality the &ospel seems to have "one throu"h a num!er of sta"es of evolution !efore reachin" its canonical form# perhaps as many as five in the view of ?elmut Coester G.?istory and Ievelopment of )ar$-s &ospel. in Colloquy on New Testament .tu#ies# ed. 0. Corley# p.>AH.+ 'he &ospel !uilds upon the ideas of the epistle# !ut at what sta"e of the latter is anythin" !ut sure. Nor can we !e certain even that the evan"elist had the epistle in hand# for the pro!lems the epistle reflects would have !een common to the community as a whole# and many of its ideas and expressions the property of the entire %ohannine circle. Certainly# A %ohn su""ests a picture of multiple con"re"ations spannin" more than one "eo"raphical center.
A 'wo,@d"ed Sword n the first &ospel story of %esus- trial and crucifixion# the author of )ar$ en"a"es in a carefully crafted and delicate !alancin" act over the 3uestion of responsi!ility for %esus- death: !etween %ew and 9oman# !etween the %ewish reli"ious esta!lishment and the secular arm of the @mpire. )ar$ $new full well that only the 9oman "overnor could condemn a man to the cross# !ut he also wanted to allot to the %ewish leaders and to the %ewish people as a whole an e3ual if not "reater role in %esus- execution. And so throu"hout his story )ar$ set the scene !y havin" the chief priests# scri!es and elders plot to do away with %esus# and it is their forces who first arrest him in the &arden of &ethsemane. ?e invented a follower of %esus# %udas !y name to sym!olize all %ewry# who !etrays %esus to his enemies and leads the arrestin" force to him. And it is the ?i"h Priest and Sanhedrin who first 3uestion %esus and a!use him# findin" him "uilty of !lasphemy and deservin" of deathDon "rounds which have never made much sense. ndeed# the entire circumstances of )ar$-s trial !efore the %ewish Council can !e seen to contravene so many

$nown conventions and prohi!itions that some scholars have !een led to re5ect its very historicity. 0ut that-s a story for another time. :hen %esus is finally turned over to the 9oman "overnor# )ar$ ma$es Pilate !ehave in a manner which is entirely uncharacteristic of what we $now of him from historical sources# and of 9oman policy in "eneral. 0y whitewashin" Pilate# !y havin" the demands of the %ewish leaders and %ewish people override his attempts to free %esus# !y havin" the crowd choose 0ara!!as over %esus *an option no "overnor of %udea would ever have offered# and there is no record of such a 9oman policy anywhere+# )ar$ places the primary responsi!ility for %esusdeath at the feet of the %ews. A 'wo @d"ed Sword A Sweet Sacrifice Crucified under Pontius Pilate 'he 9ulers of 'his A"e Iescendin" &ods 'he Iescent of the Son Christ 9eaches @arth Appendix 0i!lio"raphy :hen Pilate finally washes his hands of the affair# official 9oman !rutality ta$es over# and %esus is further a!used# scour"ed and finally crucified. 0ut the %ews immediately reenter the picture in the 5eers of the spectators at the foot of the cross# and their o!stinate un!elief is contrasted with the 9oman centurion who declares in an act of faith that .truly this man was the Son of &od.. (inally# )ar$ !rin"s &od himself into the picture to hide the sun-s face !ehind a !lac$ened s$y# and to repudiate his treacherous people !y rendin" the very veil of his own holy sanctuary. )ar$ thus set the course for the %ews- wretched fate at the hands of Christians and the Christian church for the next two millennia# and )atthew would seal its ferocity with the most heinous line of fiction ever penned: .?is !lood !e upon us and upon our childrenM. Such is the picture of %esus- death presented in the &ospels: the un5ust execution of an innocent man# !eset !y !etrayal and false accusations and a pitiless esta!lishment. ts lurid details should have !een indeli!ly !randed into the mind of every Christian preacher and writer# every convert to the new faith. nstead# there is scarcely a murmur of it until )ar$Ddrawin" on a multitude of scriptural passa"es and an old literary formula found throu"hout centuries of %ewish writin"# $nown as the Sufferin" and Bindication of the nnocent 9i"hteous OneDsits down to pen his tale# a "ood half century or more after it all supposedly too$ place. A Sweet Sacrifice Amid all the references to %esus- sacrificial death in Paul and the other first century epistle writers# we "et not a sin"le detail of the vivid trial and crucifixion story portrayed in the &ospels. 0eyond two passin" references we will presently examine# none of its rich panoply of characters appear# none of its memora!le places# nor any of its horrifyin" litany of a!use and torture. 'he words of %esus on the cross are never 3uoted# while the response of the universe to his passin" "oes unrecorded !y anyone. ndeed# a fi"ure li$e Pilate# who delivered this innocent %esus up to scour"in" and execution# seems far from Paul-s mind when he says *9omans 1A:A,=+ in a "eneral defense of the secular authority: .9ulers hold no terrors for them who do ri"ht . . . *the ruler+ is the minister of &od for your own "ood..

n 9omans 4:A2 he extols the ma"nanimity of &od who .did not spare his own son !ut delivered him up for us all.. And for the writer of @phesians */:2+# it is Christ himself who in love .delivered himself up on your !ehalf as an offerin" and a sacrifice whose fra"rance is pleasin" to &od.. *Note that the word usually translated .arrested. or .!etrayed. in 1 Corinthians 11:2A is literally .to deliver up. which# as we can see a!ove# implies no necessary &ospel settin": see Part 'wo of the )ain Articles.+ :herever Paul and the other epistle writers of the first century envisioned this sacrifice as havin" ta$en place# it seems far from the dread hill of &ol"otha and the expression of &od-s dar$ wrath toward the towerin" sin of deicide. 'he %ews .:ho Cilled the <ord %esus. :hat then are we to ma$e of the passa"e in 1 'hessalonians 2:1/,1># a!out the %ews .who $illed the <ord %esus.; :ell# many scholars *e.".# )ac$# Coester# Pearson# )ee$s# Per$ins# 0randon: see the 0i!lio"raphy at end+ have tended to ma$e short wor$ of it# dismissin" it as an interpolation !y some later editor or copyist. 'hey do so on two "rounds. One is what they consider to !e an unmista$a!le allusion to the destruction of %erusalem in verse 1># an event which happened after Paul-s death. ?ere is the passa"e in its entirety# courtesy of the New @n"lish 0i!le: 1= Fou Greferrin" to the Christians of 'hessalonicaH have fared li$e the con"re"ations in %udea# &od-s people in Christ %esus. Fou have !een treated !y your countrymen as they are treated !y 1/ the %ews# who $illed the <ord %esus and the prophets and drove us out# the %ews who are 1> heedless of &od-s will and enemies of their fellow,men# hinderin" us from spea$in" to the "entiles to lead them to salvation. All this time they have !een ma$in" up the full measure of their "uilt# and now retri!ution has overta$en them for "ood and all.. 'his finality of &od-s wrath must refer to an event on the scale of the first %ewish :ar *>>,81+# when the 'emple and much of %erusalem were destroyed# not# as is sometimes claimed *e.".# !y 9. @. 0rown+# to the expulsion of %ews from 9ome *apparently for messianic a"itation+ !y Claudius in the =1s. 'his "leeful# apocalyptic statement is hardly to !e applied to a local event which the 'hessalonians may or may not have !een aware of several years later. 0esides# Paul-s reference in verse 1= *which many ta$e as the end of the "enuine passa"e+ is to a persecution !y %ews in %udea# and even the $illin" of %esus was the responsi!ility of %ews in that location. Offerin" a local event in 9ome as a punishment for either crime seems somehow inappropriate. 'here are also those who 3uestion whether any such persecution of Christians too$ place prior to 81 *see Iou"las ?are# The Theme of Jewish &ersecution of Christians in the Gospel Accor#ing to .t. /atthew# p.A1ff.+# indicatin" that perhaps even verse 1= is part of the interpolation# !y someone who had little $nowled"e of the conditions in %udea at the time of Paul-s letter. *Pearson# !elow# su""ests this.+ 'his finality of &od-s wrath must refer to an event on the scale of the first %ewish :ar *>>,81+# when the 'emple and much of %erusalem were destroyed# not# as is sometimes claimed *e.".# !y 9. @. 0rown+# to the expulsion of %ews from 9ome *apparently for messianic a"itation+ !y Claudius in the =1s. 'his "leeful# apocalyptic statement is hardly to !e applied to a local event which the 'hessalonians may or may not have !een aware of several years later. 0esides# Paul-s reference in verse 1= *which many ta$e as the end of the "enuine passa"e+ is to a persecution !y %ews in %udea# and even the $illin" of %esus was the responsi!ility of %ews in that location. Offerin" a local event in 9ome as a punishment for either crime seems somehow inappropriate. 'here are also those who 3uestion whether any such persecution of Christians too$ place prior to

81 *see Iou"las ?are# The Theme of Jewish &ersecution of Christians in the Gospel Accor#ing to .t. /atthew# p.A1ff.+# indicatin" that perhaps even verse 1= is part of the interpolation# !y someone who had little $nowled"e of the conditions in %udea at the time of Paul-s letter. *Pearson# !elow# su""ests this.+ t has !een pointed out that there are no different textual traditions of 1 'hessalonians without the disputed passa"e. Since this is so# it is claimed# the insertion would have to have !een made very early *soon after 81+# when there would hardly have !een enou"h time for the evolution from the mythical to the historical %esus phase. 0ut this is an unfounded assumption. 9ecently *see The New Testament an# +ts /o#ern +nterpreters# @pp and )ac9ae# eds.# 1747# p.218f.+ some scholars have a!andoned the old idea that the first corpus of Pauline letters was assem!led no later than the year 71. 'hey now see such a collection as comin" around the time of )arcion in the 1=1s. @ven thou"h a few individual letters# li$e 9omans and the two Corinthians# do seem to have !een $nown !y the turn of the century to people li$e "natius# the first witness to the epistle 1 'hessalonians in the wider Christian record *!eyond the writer who used it to compose 2 'hessalonians# pro!a!ly in that city+ comes no earlier than that first corpus. 'hus the interpolation in 2:1/,1> could have !een made considera!ly later than 81. @ven into the second century# Christian anti,Semitism remained hi"h and the catastrophic events of the first %ewish :ar were very much alive in the memories of !oth %ew and "entile in the eastern empire. 'he inserted passa"e could have !een made in the letter-s own community# !efore it entered the corpus. t is even !arely conceiva!le that verse 1> refers to the outcome of the second %ewish 9evolt *1A2,/+# when 0ar Coch!a was crushed# %ews were expelled from Palestine# and a 9oman city was !uilt over the ruins of %erusalem. 'he second reason scholars tend to re5ect this passa"e as not "enuine to Paul is !ecause it does not concur with what Paul elsewhere says a!out his fellow countrymen# whom he expects will in the end !e converted to Christ. 'he vicious sentiments in these verses is reco"nized as an example of ."entile anti,%udaism. and .forei"n to Paul-s theolo"y that -all srael will !e saved-.. *See 0ir"er Pearson: .1 'hessalonians 2:1A,1>: A Ieutero,Pauline nterpolation#. %ar-ar# Theological 0e-iew >= G1781H# p.87,7=# a thorou"h consideration of the 3uestion.+ :e mi"ht also note that in 9omans 11# within a passa"e in which he spea$s of the "uilt of the %ews for failin" to heed the messa"e a!out the Christ# Paul refers to @li5ah-s words in 1 Cin"s# a!out the *lar"ely unfounded+ accusation that the %ews have ha!itually $illed the prophets sent from &od. ?ere Paul !reathes not a whisper a!out any responsi!ility on the part of the %ews for the ultimate atrocity of the $illin" of the Son of &od himself. 'his would !e an inconceiva!le silence if the 2:1/,1> passa"e in 1 'hessalonians were "enuine and the !asis of the accusation true. Crucified Ender Pontius Pilate f the one reference in the New 'estament epistles to the "uilt of the %ews for the death of %esus can reasona!ly !e re5ected as a later insertion# what a!out the other side of the coin of responsi!ility; 'he sole reference to Pontius Pilate in the canonical correspondence comes in 1 'imothy >:1A# and every scholar who reco"nizes that the three Pastoral epistles are not !y Paul dates them no earlier than the !e"innin" of the second century. Can we possi!ly ima"ine that the man who executed their founder and divinity would immediately sin$ from the consciousness of Christian letter writers for some three,3uarters of a century# that all the references to %esus- death in Paul would contain not a hint of him# nor of the trial process he presided over; @ven in 1 'imothy# some commentators have found reason to 3uestion the inte"rity of the reference to Pilate# since there are pro!lems in seein" it as appropriate to the context. 0ut since

this epistle is late# when conceiva!ly it could reflect the !e"innin"s of the idea that %esus had !een crucified !y Pilate *it is at least no earlier than the time of "natius# who is the first Christian writer outside the &ospels to mention Pilate-s name+# the 3uestion is not critical# and will place the ar"uments in favor of interpolation for 1 'imothy >:1A in an Appendix at the end of this article. Personally# support interpolation since the Pastorals as a whole contain stron" indications that their writer is still unfamiliar with an historical %esus.
0ac$ to tems

'he 9ulers of 'his A"e

f !oth references to the &ospel a"ents of %esus- crucifixion are to !e discounted *these are the only passa"es in all the epistles would claim as interpolations# plus one or two other -possi!les-+# how then does the early record deal with the circumstances and responsi!ility concernin" the death of the Son of &od; :ho does Paul identify as havin" slain Christ; <et-s loo$ at 1 Corinthians 2:>,4: > And yet do spea$ of a wisdom for those who are mature# not a wisdom of this passin" a"e# 8 nor of the rulers of this a"e who are passin" away. spea$ of &od-s secret wisdom# a mystery 4 that has !een hidden and predestined !y &od for our "lory !efore time !e"an. None of the rulers of this a"e understood it# for if they had# they would not have crucified the <ord of "lory.. A "reat amount of scholarly in$ has !een spilled over the meanin" of .the rulers of this a"e. *ton archonton tou aionos toutou# verses > and 4+. n !oth pa"an and %ewish parlance# the word archontes could !e used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority *as in 9omans 1A:A+. 0ut it is also# alon" with several others li$e it# a technical term for the spirit forces# the .powers and authorities. who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate *usually cruel+ of the earth# its nations and individuals. 'hat invisi!le powers# mostly evil# were at wor$ !ehind earthly phenomena was a widely held !elief in ?ellenistic times# includin" amon" %ews# and it was shared !y Christianity. %. ?. Charlesworth *"l# Testament &seu#epigrapha# p.>>+ puts it this way: .@arth is full of demons. ?umanity is pla"ued !y them. Almost all misfortunes are !ecause of demons: sic$ness# drou"ht# death and especially humanity-s wea$nesses a!out remainin" faithful to the covenant *with &od+. 'he re"ion !etween heaven and earth seems to !e almost cluttered !y demons and an"els6 humanity is often seen as a pawn# helpless in the face of such cosmic forces.. 'here has not !een a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:4# !ut over the last century a ma5ority of commentators *see !elow+# some reluctantly# have decided that he is referrin" to the demon spirits. 'he term aion# .a"e#. or sometimes in the plural .a"es#. was in a reli"ious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present a"e of the world# in the sense of all recorded history# since the next a"e was the one after the Parousia when &od-s Cin"dom would !e esta!lished. One of the "overnin" ideas of the period was that the world to the present point had !een under the control of the evil an"els and spirit powers# and that the comin" of the Cin"dom would see their lon" awaited overthrow. ?umanity was en"a"ed in a war a"ainst the demons# and one of the stron"est appeals of the ?ellenistic salvation cults was their promise of divine aid in this war on a personal level. 'hus# .rulers of this a"e. should not !e seen as referrin" to the current secular authorities who happen to !e in power in present political circumstances. 9ather# Paul envisions that those in the present a"e who have controlled the earth and separated it from heaven# the evil an"elic powers# are approachin" their time of .passin" away. *2:>+. 'hey did not understand &od-s purposes#

namely their own destruction# when they inadvertently crucified .the <ord of "lory.. @phesians A:7,11 echoes these hidden purposes of &od# and declares that they have now !een !rou"ht to li"ht: 7 . . . the application of this mystery which has !een hidden for lon" a"es in &od the creator of 11 the universe# so that throu"h the church the wisdom of &od mi"ht !e made $nown to the rulers and authorities in the heavens# in accordance with his eternal purpose which he carried out in Christ %esus our <ord.. ?ere the rulers are clearly identified as the ones in heaven. And we mi"ht note that the writer is consistent with "eneral Pauline expression in allottin" the tas$ of revealin" &od-s lon",hidden mystery to the .church#. to men li$e himself# not to any recent historical %esus. 'hat last phrase refers to the wor$in"s of Christ in the hi"her spiritual world# his redeemin" actions within &od-s eternal realm and time. n other words# the world of myth. A prominent first century Christian idea was that Christ !y his death had su!5ected all the spirit powers and authorities# !oth "ood and !ad# to his control. n this li"ht# Colossians 2:1/ a"ain places %esus- crucifixion in a spiritual milieu# for it is difficult to see any historical scene on Calvary contained in this idea: .On the cross he discarded the cosmic powers and authorities li$e a "arment6 he made a pu!lic spectacle of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession.. @phesians >:12 also spea$s of the fi"ht which is not a"ainst human foes# !ut a"ainst the .cosmic powers# authorities and potentates of this dar$ world# the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens.. 'hese were even thou"ht of has havin" political or"anizations li$e rulers on earth. 'hey were certainly well placed and capa!le of executin" a spiritual Christ who had descended from the hi"her divine realm into their territory# and we will loo$ in a moment at a document which paints this picture of the Son descendin" from heaven to !e crucified !y the evil an"els. Scholars who !al$ at this interpretation of Paul-s words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the &ospels specify *e.".# Anchor 0i!le# p.1>=+# are !uc$in" even ancient opinion. "natius uses the term archon in a thorou"hly an"elic sense *Smyrneans >:1+. Ori"en re"arded the archonton of 2:4 as evil spiritual !ein"s# and so did the "nostic )arcion. )odern scholars li$e C. C. 0arrett *First Epistle to the Corinthians# p.82+# Paula (redri$sen *From Jesus to Christ# p./>+# and %ean ?erin" *The First Epistle of .t. &aul to the Corinthians# p.1>,18# a !rief !ut penetratin" analysis+# have felt constrained to a"ree. Iellin" in the Theological 1ictionary of the New Testament * # p.=47+ notes that the spirit rulers are portrayed !y Paul as .treatin" the <ord of "lory as prey in i"norance of the divine plan for salvation.. 'hey operated in the spiritual realm# which S. Salmond *The E$positor,s Gree* Testament# @phesians# p.24=+ descri!es as .supra,terrestrial !ut su!,celestial re"ions.. Paul @llin"worth# A Translator,s %an#!oo* for ) Corinthians# p.=># states: .A ma5ority of scholars thin$ that supernatural powers are intended here.. S. &. (. 0randon *%istory' Time an# 1eity# p.1>8+ unflinchin"ly declares that althou"h Paul-s statement .may seem on cursory readin" to refer to the Crucifixion as an historical event. . .the expression -rulers of this a"e- does not mean the 9oman and %ewish authorities. nstead# it denotes the daemonic powers who . . . were !elieved to inha!it the planets *the celestial spheres+ and control the destinies of men. . . . Paul attri!utes the Crucifixion not to Pontius Pilate and the %ewish leaders# !ut to these planetary powers..

?owever# 0randon *li$e everyone else+ fails to address the 3uestion of how Paul could have spo$en in such terms if he had the tradition of %esus- recent death in %udea !efore his eyes# providin" not so much as a hint of 3ualification to this supernatural picture. t will not do to su""est that since earthly rulers are considered to !e controlled !y heavenly ones# the latter are seen as operatin" .throu"h. the former. Paul would not li$ely have presented thin"s in this way without an explanation. And once we "et to the &ospel picture which first ma$es a clear reference to earthly rulers in the death of %esus# any heavenly dimension which supposedly lies !ehind those rulers completely disappears.
0ac$ to items

Iescendin" &ods

'he concept that a "od# in order to perform a salvific act# had to approach or even enter the .world of flesh. was arrived at !y philosophical reasonin". n the hi"her celestial spheres where deity was perfect and unsullied !y any contact with matter and the world of humans# "ods existed in their fully divine state. 'here they could certainly not do somethin" as human as to suffer. Pain# !lood# death: these were the unfortunate features of the lower# !aser levels of the universe. 'o under"o such thin"s# the "od had to come down to humanity-s territory. ?e had to ta$e on material characteristics and capacities. f contact !etween flesh and divinity was to !e made# the initiative lay with the "od. Ieity had to pity its unfortunate# fallen creation. t had to hum!le itself# compromise its spiritual purity. t had to descend. And descend it did# for the concept of the .descendin" redeemer. seems to have !een a pervasive idea durin" this era# thou"h the evidence for the pre,Christian period is patchy and much de!ated. 'he ancient mind at the turn of the era saw the universe as multi,layered. Ender the influence of Platonism# there was first of all a dualistic division !etween the lower material world where humans lived# and the hi"her# spiritual world where divinity dwelled. 'he former was only a transient# imperfect copy of the latter. Spiritual processes and the activity of "ods in the hi"her realm had their correspondin" effects on the world !elow. Paul thus lived at a time when the world of matter was viewed as only one dimension of reality# the o!serva!le half of a lar"er inte"rated whole whose other# invisi!le# half was referred to as the ."enuine. reality# accessi!le to the intellect. 0ut most views of the universe also saw a division of the upper world into several levelsD usually seven# !ased on the $nown planets. As a deity descended from the hi"her reaches of pure spirit# he passed throu"h ever de"eneratin" levels of the heavens# and too$ on an increasin" li$eness to lower# material forms as well as an a!ility to suffer fleshly fates# such as pain and death. 'he first level of the spirit world was the air# or .firmament#. !etween the earth and the moon. 'his was the domain of the demon spiritsDin %ewish parlance# of Satan and his evil an"elsDand it was re"arded as closely connected to the earthly sphere. 'he demonic spiritual powers !elon"ed to the realm of flesh *Theological 1ictionary of the New Testament# B # p.124+ and they were thou"ht of as in some way corporeal# thou"h they possessed -heavenly- versions of earthly !odies *+!i#.# p.1=A+. 'hus it was wholly conceiva!le for Paul-s savior deity in that spiritual world to descend into the realm of the demon spirits. ?ere he would !e in the sphere of flesh# which fits the early writersalmost universal use of such stereotyped phrases as .in flesh#. .accordin" to the flesh.. *C. C. 0arrett translates *ata sar*a in 9omans 1:A as .in the sphere of the flesh.. See his Epistle to the 0omans# p.216 compare C. @. 0. Cranfield# +nternational Critical Commentary: 0omans# p.>1.+ ?ere Christ possessed or could assume counterpart characteristics to those of the visi!le world6 he could under"o sufferin" and death at the hands of the spirits as a !lood sacrifice# and !e

raised !y &od !ac$ to the hi"hest heaven. @ven if it was all a part of &od-s .mystery#. somethin" that had ta$en place in &od-s eternal time# hidden for lon" "enerations and $nowa!le to men li$e Paul only throu"h divine revelation in scripture *as in 9omans 1>:2/,28# @phesians A:/# etc.+. Such ideas were not restricted to %udaism and Christianity# althou"h the few survivin" writers who touch on the &ree$ mysteries and the activities of their deities tend to !e sophisticated philosophers li$e Plutarch and Sallustius. 'hese men saw the stories of the &ree$ salvation cults as .eternal meanin"s clothed in myths.. 'hey were .alle"orical interpretations. only# even if the minds of .ordinary men. saw them as more literal. *Some of those avera"e devotees of the cults may also have retained a more traditional way of viewin" the myths of the savior "ods as !elon"in" to a primordial past on earth.+ 'he fourth century Sallustius re"arded the story of Attis as .an eternal cosmic process# not an isolated event of the past. *"n Go#s an# the 2orl## 7+. ?is mentor# the .Apostate. emperor %ulian# descri!es *in "rations 3# 1>/+ Attis- descent to the lowest spirit level prior to matter# under"oin" his death !y castration to "ive the visi!le world order and fruitfulness6 !ut he re"ards this as a sym!ol of the annual cycle of a"ricultural re!irth# the "enerative power which descends into the earth from the upper re"ions of the stars. )yths of the descent and ascent of deity are often interpreted *especially in "nosticism and neoplatonism+ as sym!olizin" the ancient idea of the fall of the soul into matter# its sufferin" and death within that !ase# imperfect world# followed !y a reascent into its proper a!ode and state# an exaltation. 'he myth of the redeemin" "od# the paradi"m for the soul-s descent and ascent# "uarantees this destiny for the !eliever. 'here are clear echoes of such thin$in" in Paul *e.".# 9omans >:/+. And the earliest uncovera!le layers of Christian cultic mytholo"y# such as the christolo"ical hymn found in Philippians 2:>, 11# often allude to such a paradi"matic .descent and sufferin" leadin" to exaltation.: .(or the divine nature was his from the first6 yet he did not thin$ to snatch at e3uality with &od# !ut made himself nothin"# assumin" the nature *or form+ of a slave. 0earin" the human li$eness# revealed in human shape# he hum!led himself# and in o!edience accepted even deathDdeath on a cross. 'herefore &od raised him to the hei"hts and !estowed on him the name a!ove all names# that at the name of %esus every $nee should !owDin heaven# on earth# and in the depths Dand every ton"ue confess# -%esus Christ is <ord-# to the "lory of &od the (ather.. *'he N@0 translation+ 'his pre,Pauline hymn is the early Christian epitome of the descendin",ascendin" redeemer myth# and there is not a !reath of identification with any %esus of Nazareth. 'hree times does the hymn allude to the idea that this divinity too$ on a li$eness to !ase# material form# !ut never does it say that he !ecame an actual man# much less "ive him a life on earth. nstead# this deity descends to under"o death *some commentators# such as Norman Perrin# Iennis C. Iulin" in The New Testament: An +ntro#uction# 2nd ed.# p.>1# feel that the phrase .death on a cross. is pro!a!ly a Pauline addition# since it interrupts the pattern of the poetic lines+ and is raised !ac$ to the hi"hest heaven# where he is exalted. Note# !y the way# that this divinity is "iven the name .%esus. only after his exaltation followin" death# indicatin" that the hymnist $new of no previous life on earth under that name. *'he term .<ord. is a title# not a name.+ 'he shorter hymn in 1 'imothy A:1> offers a similar descent,ascent pattern performed !y a divine !ein": .?e who was manifested in flesh# vindicated in spirit# seen !y an"els6 was proclaimed amon" the nations# !elieved in throu"hout the world# "lorified in hi"h heaven..

Once a"ain there is no identification with a human man# and any su""estion of a ministry is pointedly lac$in". 'his deity seems to have !een seen only !y an"els and en"a"ed in no proclaimin" of his own. 'he .in flesh. of the first line *en sar*i+ can !e translated .in the sphere of the flesh#. as noted a!ove. ?owever# no Christian writer or hymnist expresses the view that the Christ myth is alle"orical or sym!olic. Paul seems to have very much !elieved in the divine %esus- literal sufferin" at the hands of the demon spirits. 'he Iescent of the Son n a %ewishLChristian piece of writin" called the Ascension of saiah we can find corro!oration for the picture of a divine Son who descends into the lower reaches of the heavens to !e crucified !y the demon spirits. 'his document falls into two sections which were ori"inally independent. 'he second section# the Bision of saiah *chapters >,11+# underwent its own evolution !efore !ein" com!ined with the first# and it contains a detailed picture of the descent, ascent motif we have !een discussin". 'his is a difficult document to analyze in any exact fashion# since the several survivin" manuscripts differ considera!ly in wordin"# phrases and even whole sections. t has !een su!5ected to much editin" in a complicated and uncertain pattern of revision. 0ut a couple of passa"es seem to indicate that in its earlier layers the Bision spea$s only of a divine Son who operates entirely in the spiritual realm. 'he community that wrote this# pro!a!ly toward the end of the first century# lived in a world of apocalyptic expectation and revelation from the ?oly Spirit *>:>f+. Salvation is expected for the ri"hteous elect# who will !e exalted as a conse3uence of the death and exaltation of the Son. saiah is "ranted a vision# in which he ascends throu"h the seven heavens of a layered universe and receives a view of &od and his 0eloved# also called the Chosen One and Christ. ?e learns that this Son is to descend to the lower world# where he will !e $illed and rise# rescuin" the souls of the ri"hteous dead from Sheol as he re,ascends to the hi"hest heaven. ?ere is the $ey passa"e. 'he seer and his an"elic "uide have reached the seventh heaven. 'here they see the <ord# the Christ# and the an"el foretells this to saiah *7:1A,18+: 1A . 'he <ord will descend into the world in the last days# he who is to !e called Christ after he has descended and !ecome li$e you in form# and they will thin$ that he is flesh and a man. 1= And the "od of that world will stretch out his hand a"ainst the Son# and they will lay their 1/ hands upon him and han" him upon a tree# not $nowin" who he is. And thus his descent# as 1> you will see# will !e concealed from the heavens# so that it will not !e $nown who he is. And when he has plundered the an"el of death# he will rise on the third day and will remain in the 18 world for /=/ days. And then many of the ri"hteous will ascend with him.. 'his loo$s li$e a fleshin" out of the implication !ehind Paul-s reference to the crucifixion in 1 Corinthians 2:4. :e have the descent of the Son throu"h the layers of heaven# a ta$in" on of the .li$eness. of men. .'hey will thin$ that he is flesh and a man. clearly implies that he is not. 'here is no su""estion of %esus of Nazareth here. Nor is it li$ely to !e a reference to docetism *Christ havin" an earthly !ody which only .seems. human+# since the phrase loo$s to !e related to the idea in verses 1= and 1/ that his i#entity has !een concealed. Nor is the &ospel trial and execution anywhere in si"ht in the reference to the han"in" upon a tree. 9ather# this han"in" is somethin" performed !y .the "od of that world#. meanin" Satan. *Some manuscripts read: .he

will han" him upon a tree..+ 'hou"h it is set .in the last days. *%ewish apocalyptic writers tend not to !e so Platonically strict+# the entire thin" has the rin" of a mytholo"ical scene. 'o under"o this fate# the Son has entered the firmament *the .air. !etween the earth and the moon+ where Satan and his evil an"els dwell. At the !e"innin" of his ascent *8:7,12+# saiah has passed throu"h the firmament where he saw Satan and his warrin" an"els# a stru""le# his "uide tells him# which .will last until the one comes whom you are to see# and he will destroy him.. As in 1 Corinthians 2:4 and Colossians 2:1/# one of the Son-s principal tas$s will !e the con3uest of the demon spirits. Berse 1= tells us that those who do the han"in" do not $now who this Son is. Once a"ain# this would not seem to !e a &ospel reference to 9omans or %ews# !ut means the evil an"els of the firmament# for verse 1/ indicates that it is the layers of heaven where the concealment and the i"norance a!out the Son-s identity lie. 'his i"norance on the part of the ."od of that world. is similar to that of the .rulers of this a"e. who unwittin"ly crucify the <ord of &lory in 1 Corinthians 2:4. 'hus the crucifixion is somethin" perpetrated !y the supernatural powers and ta$es place in the spiritual world. 'he reference to risin" on the third day and remainin" for /=/ days is# in the opinion of ). Cni!!# the translator and commentator on the Ascension of saiah in The "l# Testament &seu#epigrapha * # p.1=Af.+# a later addition to the text !ased on "nostic sources which !elieved that %esus remained on earth after his resurrection for 14 months *p.181# n.-v-+. Other !its and pieces throu"hout the Bision are the rewor$in"s of editors# so that it is difficult to uncover and differentiate the various strands. Cni!! even voices the possi!ility *p.181# n.-"-+ that all entries of the names %esus and Christ are later additions. As part of saiah-s vision *11:4,1=+# the (ather "ives instructions to the Son a!out his comin" descent into the lower world and his reascent to the seventh heaven. 'here is nothin" in this divine directive which spea$s of an incarnation into flesh and earthly history# nothin" of a ministry# nothin" of a death at the hands of humans. 'here is not a whisper of any $nowled"e of the &ospels. 'he Son-s activities seem to relate entirely to the spirit realm# layers of heaven extendin" throu"h the firmament and includin" Sheol. &od-s instructions focus on how he is to proceed throu"h these heavenly spheres# and on the tas$ of destroyin" the power of Satan and the evil spirits. :hen )ar$ came to write his midrashic tale a!out a %esus on earth# the war !y heaven and the Son a"ainst the demons was translated into %esus- war on earth a"ainst the new# humanized demons: the %ews. %ust as the .rulers of this a"e#. the evil spirits# were the murderers of Christ in the Pauline phase# the earthly %ews !ecame the Christ,$illers in the &ospel version# an alle"ory which very 3uic$ly "ot turned into history. Christ 9eaches @arth Simplistically put# there are three types of survivin" manuscripts of the Ascension of saiah: @thiopic# second <atin# and Slavonic. 'he first is thou"ht to !e !ased on one &ree$ text# the other two on a different &ree$ text. 'here are nota!le differences !etween the @thiopic on the one hand# and the second <atin and Slavonic on the other. Also# the latter pair include only the second section of the wor$# chapters > to 11# which is the part we are concerned with. n the @thiopic text we encounter an unusual passa"e in 11:2,22# not a word of which appears in the other two. t recounts *as part of saiah-s vision of the future+ first the !irth of the <ord to )ary and %oseph in 0ethlehem. 'his passa"e a"rees with no &ospel Nativity scene. ?ere %esus is !orn in his parents- house# to a )ary who has not !een forewarned of who this infant is.

<ac$in" any details concernin" ?erod# ma"i# census# man"er# shepherds# etc.# it would seem to !e an early# more primitive formulation of a !irth story. 'he passa"e "oes on to ma$e !are reference to the "reat si"ns and miracles the adult %esus performed in srael# how the children of srael turned a"ainst him# how he was handed over to the .ruler. *Cni!! presumes that this must !e Pilate+ to !e crucified# and how he descended to the an"el in Sheol. t then concludes *verse 21+: . n %erusalem# saw how they crucified him on a tree# and how after the third day he rose and remained *many+ days. And saw when he sent out the twelve disciples and ascended.. Cni!! *op.cit.# p.1/=+ remar$s that .the primitive character of this narrative ma$es it difficult to !elieve that it did not form part of the ori"inal text.. @lsewhere *p.1=>+# he su""ests that the &ree$ text on which the second <atin and Slavonic manuscripts were !ased was a .revision. of the one on which the @thiopic was !ased# and that the 11:2,22 passa"e had !een cut from the latter !ecause of its .le"endary features.. 0ut this would not seem to ma$e much sense. :hy would a .reviser. choose to delete such a $ey passa"e# the only one in the Bision which has anythin" to say a!out %esus- life on earth; And why would such details !e seen as .le"endary#. implyin" that they were undesira!le; f they seemed primitive to a later editor# experience has always shown that when a Christian copyist or redactor does not li$e somethin"# he chan"es it to ma$e it conform to current outloo$. 9arely does he drop it alto"etherDor reduce it to a phrase# such as is found at that point in the other versions An earlier scholar of the Ascension# 9. ?. Charles# also re"arded 11:2,22 as part of the ori"inal text# !ut he did so the !asis of preconception. Since chapter 7# he says# .leads us to expect a definite portrayal of these events in a vision#. *i.e.# crucifixion# descent into Sheol# resurrection on the third day+# 11:2,22 fulfills this expectation *The Ascension of +saiah# 1711# p.xxii+. Of course# such an expectation is !ased on the assumptions of the &ospels. :ould not a !etter explanation !e that the <atin and Slavonic texts are earlier# and that the &ree$ text !ehind the @thiopic has enlar"ed upon an earlier &ree$ version lyin" !ehind the others; @ven within the @thiopic text of 11:2,22# we can detect si"ns of incremental expansion and revision. (or example# in 11:21# in referrin" to how lon" Christ remained on earth after risin"# different manuscripts in the @thiopic have varyin" len"ths of time# one !ein" .forty days#. no dou!t under the influence of Acts. n "eneral# the @thiopic seems to show expansions on more primitive passa"es in the other two. . would ar"ue that the Ascension of saiah may reveal an evolution from a spiritual Christ operatin" in a supernatural settin"# to a physical Christ livin" a life in an earthly settin". A document is !ein" periodically revised *!y multiple redactors in different versions+ to reflect new developments in thou"ht and doctrine# even if not every detail is always !rou"ht up to date. 'he @thiopic manuscripts can contain a !rief account of %esus- life on earth and yet not have descriptions of the Son-s descent enlar"ed to include an earthly dimension. Perhaps it was felt to !e implicitDas some modern scholars would assume.
0ac$ to tems Appendix

s the 9eference to Pilate in 1 'imothy >:1A an nterpolation;

1 'imothy >:12,1= reads *.Paul. addressin" .'imothy.+: 12 . 9un the "reat race of faith and ta$e hold of eternal life. (or to this you were 1A called and you confessed your faith no!ly !efore many witnesses. Now in the presence of &od# who "ives life to all thin"s# and of %esus Christ# Gwho himself

made the same no!le confession and "ave his testimony to it !efore Pontius 1= Pilate#H char"e you to o!ey your orders irreproacha!ly and without fault until our <ord %esus Christ appears.. 1 and 2 'imothy and 'itus *called .the Pastoral @pistles.+ were written in Paul-s name so as to claim the authority of that famous apostle for the views the writer is advocatin". )ost critical scholars date them !etween 111 and 12/. 'hey can !e a product neither of Paul nor of his time. As %. <. ?oulden says *The &astoral Epistles# p.14+: .Neither in voca!ulary and literary techni3ues nor in atmosphere and teachin"s is it plausi!le to suppose that these writin"s come from the same pen as the main !ody of Paul-s letters.. 'he Pastorals reflect the !e"innin"s of a church system which only came into existence around the !e"innin" of the second century: a !ishop# supported !y a "roup of elders and deacons. As well# all sense of immediate expectation of the Parousia has passed. 'he church is !ecomin" acclimatized to the world and a future. 'imothy-s confession of faith !efore many witnesses *verse 12+ is interpreted as referrin" to one of two possi!le occasions: either the !aptismal ceremony upon his conversion to the faith# or his ordination as a minister. Commentators usually choose the former# since !aptism is the more li$ely event at which one is .called to eternal life.. 'he sacrament was pu!licly administered !efore the con"re"ation# providin" the .many witnesses. referred to. 'imothy is confessin" his faith !efore &od and fellow Christians. 'he content of that statement of faith no dou!t had to do with a !elief in Christ. 'he way the reference to Pilate is introduced into the text *the clause in s3uare !rac$ets a!ove+ shows that it is intended as a parallel to 'imothy-s confession in the previous sentence. 0ut there is much to !e concerned a!out in this assumption. *See %. ?. ?oulden# The &astoral Epistles# p.111,16 %. N. I. Celly# The &astoral Epistles# p.1=A.+ %esus- situation on trial !efore Pilate is not the same as 'imothy-s at his !aptism# or even his ordination. 'imothy-s confession is !efore &od and friendly witnesses6 %esus- is not# and it puts Pilate in parallel to &od# which is at !est inappropriate# at worst irreverent. %esus- declaration !efore Pilate is presuma!ly a statement a!out himself# which is an aw$ward e3uivalent to the !eliever-s declaration of faith in %esus. :ith all of these difficult features in such a comparison# one mi"ht wonder what would have led the ori"inal writer to thin$ of ma$in" it. Commentators discount the possi!ility that the occasion of 'imothy-s confession was !efore a ma"istrate# when he mi"ht have !een on trial for his Christian !eliefs. No such event# from which the writer could have drawn# appears in the "enuine Pauline letters. 0esides# such a trial would hardly !e called a summons to eternal life. ?owever# we must consider the possi!ility that a later scri!e may have misinterpreted thin"s in this way. Perhaps !y some time further into the second

century a tradition had "rown up that 'imothy had in fact !een prosecuted for his faith. 'his may have prompted such a scri!e to insert the idea that# 5ust as 'imothy had declared !efore hostile ma"istrates his faith that %esus was the Son of &od and )essiah# Christ himself !efore a hostile Pilate had declared these thin"s a!out himself. Such an editor may have felt that while .&od. *in verse 1A+ had a 3ualifyin" phrase# .who "ives life to all thin"s#. somethin" was lac$in" after .and of %esus Christ#. and the comparison with %esus- trial was what came into his mind. t has also !een pointed out that in the account of the trial !efore Pilate in the synoptic &ospels# %esus !arely says anythin"# maintainin" a stoic silence. ?is simple a"reement# . t is as you say#. in answer to the 3uestion .Are you the $in" of the %ews;. is hardly a .no!le confession. to inspire such a comment as we find in 1 'imothy >:1A. ?owever# %ohn# when he came to revise the synoptic passion story# had %esus en"a"e in a dramatic de!ate with the 9oman "overnor# which mi"ht well have !een the source of the comment. Since attestation for the &ospel of %ohn is lac$in" durin" the period to which the Pastorals are usually assi"ned# this would su""est that the clause is indeed an interpolation from a later point in the century# when %ohn was more widely $nown. 'he Pastorals are not included in the earliest corpus of the Pauline letters# so the fact that there is no manuscript evidence of the letter without this reference to Pilate does not pose a pro!lem. )oreover# only a few verses later *>:1>+# when spea$in" of &od# the epistle ma$es this sweepin" statement: .No man has ever seen or ever can see him.. f the man %esus of Nazareth had recently !een on earth# standin" !efore Pilate# a man who had in fact seen and come from &od# one would not expect the writer to have said such a thin"Dat least without some 3ualification. 'he possi!ility of interpolation is supported !y somethin" suspicious which occurs a few verses earlier. n six places in the Pastoral letters the writer uses the phrase .wholesome teachin".. n five of these# there is no indication of the source of such teachin". n fact# the first time the phrase appears# in 1 'imothy 1:11# the writer *spea$in" as Paul+ says that such teachin" .conforms with the "ospel entrusted to me# the "ospel which tells of the "lory of &od.. 'his pointedly i"nores any identification of %esus as the source of the teachin". 0ut in 1 'imothy >:A an unexpected phrase intrudes: . f anyone . . . teaches differently and does not a"ree with wholesome wordsD those of our <ord %esus ChristDand with pious teachin"# call him puffed up and i"norant.. 'he phrase .those of our <ord %esus Christ. *tois tou *uriou hemon +esou Christou+ has the loo$ of a scri!al notation ori"inally made in the mar"in which later "ot inserted into the text. *'his was a common occurrence in the transmission of ancient manuscripts.+ f it were part of the ori"inal writer-s text# the word

.those. *tois+ would have !een redundant and would not li$ely have !een written. 9ather# it conveys the impression of an afterthou"ht. 'he whole thin" seems carelessly done# !ecause the insertion fails to cover the succeedin" phrase# .and with pious teachin"#. which we would expect to find identified with %esus as well. *Note that ta$en !y itself# the passa"e in >:A is not re3uired to !e an interpolation in order to maintain that the Pastorals $now no historical %esus. @ven if tois tou *uriou hemon +esou Christou is part of the ori"inal text# it need imply no more than that the .teachin". is considered to !e revealed throu"h the spiritual Christ# in much the same sense as Paul-s .words of the <ord.. )ost "ods were re"arded as .teachin"..+ :e have here a very li$ely interpolation made some time after the letter was written# and it occurs 5ust a few verses !efore another phrase# the one a!out Pilate# which seems similarly out of place. t is admittedly in my own interest to re"ard the reference to Pontius Pilate in 1 'imothy >:1A as a possi!le interpolation# !ut there are clearly "ood reasons for doin" so.
Supplementary Articles , No. =: 'he Odes of Solomon ntroduction 'he lon",lost Odes of Solomon were discovered !y %. 9endel ?arris in 1717 amon" a pile of old Syriac manuscripts which had !een !rou"ht to @n"land from the )iddle @ast and tossed onto shelves in a corner of his office. 'he manuscript-s openin" leaves were "one# and of the =2 Odes in the set# Nos. 1 and 2 were missin". No. 2 still is. 0ut No. 1 was already $nown from a "nostic document in Coptic# in which it had !een placed in the mouth of .)ary# mother of %esus..

'he Odes were almost certainly composed in Syriac# pro!a!ly in the latter part of the first century# and very li$ely in northern Syria# i.e.# Antioch# @dessa# or some near!y center. 'heir tone is predominantly %ewish# thou"h with seemin" Christian overtones which are tantalizin" and frustratin"ly o!scure. 'he Odes show mildly "nostic features as well# and a lon" de!ate has sounded over whether they !elon" in this line of development. 'here are many parallels in terms and ideas with the &ospel of %ohn# !ut direct dependence on that wor$ has !een discounted6 instead a .shared community. is su""ested# thou"h not necessarily in precisely the same location or at the same time. @ven "reater are the parallels with certain of the Iead Sea Scrolls# especially the 'han$s"ivin" ?ymns# and the Odes as a whole are clearly modeled on the Iavidic Psalms. (rom the !e"innin"# the controversy surroundin" the Odes# and one of the focuses of their study# has !een on the 3uestion of how they should !e cate"orized. Are they %ewish# Christian# &nostic# %ohannine; Scholars with an orthodox view of Christian ori"ins and development have attempted to ali"n them with their own outloo$. 'he pro!lem is# the Odes do not conform to mainstream %udaism *there is nothin" a!out the 'emple cult or the )osaic <aw in them+# and they refuse to yield up any !ut the va"uest of Christian references# and then only under duress. would

su""est that if one !rin"s a fresh# unpre5udiced eye to these poems# one will uncover valua!le insi"hts into the nature and diversity of early Christianity# the types of !elief that were developin" in different sectarian communities# where the li"ht of the &ospels had not yet arrived to cast its artificial and distortin" "lare over the new landscape. 'he first thin" that stri$es one on readin" the Odes of Solomon is# 3uite simply# their poetic !eauty. 'hey are unli$e almost anythin" else one encounters in %ewish and Christian literature of the time. No other piece of writin" comes close to their 5oyous# unclouded atmosphere. A!sent is the dar$# punitive fever of end,of,the, world prophecy. No !lood of sacrifice# no oppressive moral in5unction# no rancorous sectarian attitude mars the purity and "race of their expression. 'heir 3uiet ecstasy# their sacred eroticism# is the voice of the mystic# thou"h it is impossi!le to say if the same person wrote them all. Poetically# the writer was inspired !y the Iavidic Psalms# !ut !y none of their plaintive supplication and lamentation. ?is Odes !as$ in a warm and optimistic li"ht.

The (reat &e)ate

?ere is Ode No. 1# one of the shortest6 others extend to as much as 2> verses. n my 3uotations am "oin" to ta$e the occasional li!erty of leavenin" the recent *174/+ translation of %. ?. Charlesworth in The "l# Testament &seu#epigrapha *edited !y %. ?. Charlesworth+# volume 2# pa"e 8A/f# with that of the team of 9endel ?arris and Alphonse )in"ana who pu!lished a thorou"h study of the Odes in 1721 *The "#es an# &salms of .olomon+. Neither the usual division of a verse into two lines *sometimes three+# nor the num!erin" of the verses appears in the manuscript. 1 The Lord is upon my head like a crown, and I shall never be without him. 2 3 bud! " $ Plaited for me is the crown of truth, and it caused your branches to blossom in me. or it is not like a withered crown that does not #ut you live upon my head, and you have blossomed upon me. %our fruits are full and complete& they are full of your salvation.

As soon as they were pu!lished# the de!ate !e"an. :hat were these Odes and who wrote them; 'he prominent &erman scholar Adolf ?arnac$ pronounced them a

%ewish hymn!oo$ later interpolated !y a Christian# and althou"h he su!se3uently chan"ed his mind under the influence of other studies# their pervasive %ewish tone and content still persuades some scholars in this direction. Su""estions that they represent some form of second century "nosticism are now out of favor. %ames ?. Charlesworth# perhaps the leadin" specialist in the Odes of Solomon today# and a scholar whose theolo"ical views can !est !e descri!ed as .traditional#. declares them unreservedly Christian. ?e calls for support on %. A. @merton# who .considers the de!ate closed: -'he Odes are plainly Christian in their present form.. *The "l# Testament &seu#epigrapha# vol. 2# pa"e 828. will henceforth a!!reviate this pu!lication and volume to "T&.+ Charlesworth mana"es to find in the ima"ery of the Odes all sorts of allusions to %esus of Nazareth. ?e sees in them a .re5oicin" over and experiencin" of a resurrected and livin" )essiah# <ord and Savior.. *"T&# p.824+ 0ut can an un!iased eye discern the same thin"; (irst of all# this cele!ration of %esus never spea$s the name %esus. 'he title .)essiah. appears seven times# all with a definite %ewish flavor. *:e should avoid the term .Christ#. since this document was not written in &ree$# and the term would "ive us misleadin" connotations.+ Not a sin"le &ospel detail is evident anywhere in these Odes. A handful of allusions which have su""ested this or that &ospel incident to some commentators are# as we shall see# a part of the ima"ery the Odist has drawn from scripture. Charlesworth declares that the crucifixion is .si"nificantly portrayed. *"T&# p.8A2+. ?ere is one of the two main passa"es he draws on# Ode 28 in its wispy entirety: 1 I e'tended my hands and hallowed my Lord& 2 3 or the e'pansion of my hands is his si(n. )nd my e'tension is the upri(ht wood.

'he word .wood. is often used in later Syriac literature for the cross *of %esus+# !ut it also means .tree#. and the word has ties with the ima"e of the wood,tree of Paradise# which sym!olizes a source of life. n fact# there is evocative ima"ery in the Odes *11 and A4+ of the OdistL!eliever planted and !loomin" li$e a tree in Paradise# rooted and .spread out. li$e the !ranches of a tree. Ode 28# then# with its spread hands *i.e.# arms extended strai"ht out sideways+# could !e a mystically si"nificant prayer posture# and not an echo of the cross. 'here is# as one can see# nothin" in this Ode to su""est the idea of crucifixion. 'hat %esus- cross lies !ehind

this .si"n. is somethin" which Charlesworth and others have read into it. )oreover# who is the .<ord. referred to in verse 1; Compare the first verse of Ode A8# where the poet says: . extended my hands toward the <ord# and toward the )ost ?i"h raised my voice.. 'he .<ord. is in parallel with the .)ost ?i"h#. which refers to &od. *'his $ind of repetitive 5uxtaposition is common in Old 'estament poetry: the two terms are not references to different fi"ures. And the rest of the Ode ma$es this clear.+ ?ere# then# the poet is .extendin" his hands. *same Syriac words+ in supplication to Go## with no allusion to wood *or a cross+. Conse3uently# it would seem that in Ode 28# .<ord. is also a reference to &od and that the .si"n. !elon"s to himD curious# if it is supposed to !e %esus- cross that is in mind. *As a "eneral rule# all references to .<ord. in the Odes are to &od# except when they are expressly lin$ed with the .)essiah..+ 'hus# Charlesworth-s claim that Ode 28 is a .portrayal. of the crucifixion is hi"hly du!ious. 'he other passa"e which Charlesworth points to# in Ode =2# is almost identical. :e-ll examine it later and loo$ a"ain at the 3uestion of 5ust what the "esture of the extended handsLarms mi"ht or mi"ht not si"nify. A couple of other passa"es which he enlists as references to %esus- sufferin" and death have even less to recommend them. :e-ll note these later# too. 'he pic$in"s concernin" the resurrection are even slimmer. A verse from Ode =2 says: * Then I arose and am with them, and will speak by their mouths. 'his va"ue idea is certainly ni""ardly# and that it is lin$ed to a precedin" death is far from clear *see later+. Charlesworth thin$s to see the resurrection implied in any use of the idea of raisin"# elevation or rescue *such as 4:/+. n Ode 18# throu"h a rather circuitous association# he translates a word usually meanin" .prayer. or .re3uest. as .resurrection#. a"ain in a context which has nothin" to say a!out &ood (riday or @aster. n any case# such elusive events are unattached to any idea of !lood sacrifice or atonement# for these concepts never appear in the Odes of Solomon. 'he poet may !e cele!ratin" his salvation# !ut it is not a salvation achieved throu"h any process resem!lin" orthodox Christian doctrine. 'his# in some /11 verses# is the sum of the .emphasis. spent on the central Christian doctrines of the cross and the resurrectionDif indeed such ima"es can even !e detected.

A Focus on (od

As is evident in No. 1 a!ove# the Odes are overwhelmin"ly theocentric. 'heir focus# their exaltation# is centered on &od. ?e is the .<ord.. 'his term is used in constant echo of the !i!lical Psalms# often in association with .(ather. and .)ost ?i"h.. Consider Ode /: 1 I praise you, + Lord, because I love you. 2 3 + ,ost -i(h, abandon me not, for you are my hope. reely did I receive your (race. ,ay I live by it.

Or Ode 1=: 1 )s the eyes of a son upon his father, so are my eyes, + Lord, at all times toward you... " .tretch out to me, my Lord, at all times your ri(ht hand, and be to me a (uide till the end accordin( to your will... 1/ or you are sufficient for all our needs.

n passa"es li$e this the poet exults in what he has received from &od# not from %esus. ?is love# his needs# his hopes# his than$s# are channeled toward the (ather. Could that last line possi!ly have !een penned !y anyone deservin" the name Christian; Salvation comes not from %esus !ut from &od# as in Ode 1/: 1 )s the sun is the 0oy to them who seek its daybreak, so is my 0oy the Lord... * him 1 I abandoned the way of error, and went toward him and received salvation from (enerously... )nd I have put on immortality throu(h his name, and stripped off corruption by his (race.

@ven the term .?elper#. a concept which would have provided a natural hoo$ to attach %esus to# is in its several appearances# such as Ode 2/# also an appellation of

&od: 1 2

I was rescued from my chains, and fled unto you, + my 2od. #ecause you are the ri(ht hand of salvation and my -elper.

@ven in extended passa"es which present a more detailed comment on the wonder of salvation# the fi"ure# the very sense of a redeemin" %esus is missin". Consider Ode 11: 3 )nd his circumcisin( became my salvation, and I ran in the 3ay, in his peace, in the 3ay of Truth... $ * 4 12 )nd I was established on the rock of truth where he had set me. )nd speakin( waters touched my lips from the fountain of the Lord (enerously. )nd so I drank and became into'icated from the livin( water that does not die...

)nd from above 5the Lord6 (ave me immortal rest and I became like the land which blossoms and re0oices in its fruits. t is difficult to detect here any .5oyous tone of than$s"ivin" for the advent of the )essiah#. as Charlesworth has put it *"T&# p.82>+. t is &od with whom the poet is intoxicated. t is he who dispenses the .livin" water.. As in some of the New 'estament epistles# &od is re"ularly called .Savior.6 to him "o than$s for salvation. 'his is not to say that the Odes do not contain in many places the idea of an intermediary fi"ure or force. f they did not# they would !e of no interest to us. 0ut this cannot !e interpreted properly if the hi"hly poetic and sym!olic ima"ery descri!in" such a fi"ure is !lithely applied to the &ospel %esus# or if we do not first set a sta"e which shows that the Odist-s fundamental orientation is toward &od. :e are not facin" simply a lac$ of all the !asic elements of %esus- life# death and resurrection in these Odes. 'he void extends to any sense of %esus as a recent fi"ure or personality who is the o!5ect of the poet-s faith and the reason for his alle"iance to the sect he !elon"s to. 'he e3uation with %esus of Nazareth is

undenia!ly missin"# !ut the dimension of the intermediary .Son. is there# and a proper analysis of the Odes of Solomon can provide us with a very revealin" window onto the philosophical roots of the Christian movement.

Sal*ation Through Word and Wisdom

'he last 3uote a!ove# from Ode 11# indicates the nature and means of &od-s salvation. 'he motif of .&od-s truth. is ever on the poet-s lips. ?is verses are full of lon"standin" %ewish ima"ery representin" the $nowled"e received from &od. Ode > spea$s of this $nowled"e as a .stream. which !ecomes a !road river# sweepin" over the earth# 3uenchin" the thirst of all who drin$. 'he spread of water as a metaphor for the flowin" forth of &od-s spirit and $nowled"e is an occasional Old 'estament idea. ?ere none of this $nowled"e is said to come throu"h an historical %esus# thou"h the phrase .livin" water. was to !e applied to such a fi"ure !y the community of %ohn. One line in Ode A= sums up the poet-s picture of redemption: * 2race has been revealed for your salvation. #elieve and live and be saved. 'he pattern is simple: revelation of &od-s "race and truth# !elief in that revelation# the conse3uent "uarantee of eternal life. 'he silence on the &ospel %esus and his wor$ of redemption is resoundin". n Ode 2/ the poet "ains stren"th over his adversaries# he has !een raised up and healed# not !y the wor$s of %esus# !ut !y &od-s truth. 'ruth is the o!5ect of the paean in Ode 12# truth comin" from the mouth of &od. And here we meet a mild personification of this truth in the use of the term .:ord.. :e should not ma$e this fully e3uivalent to the &ree$ <o"os# for it still retains much of its traditional sense as the utterance of &od# the revelation of himself to the world: 3 )nd he 52od6 has caused his knowled(e to abound in me, because the mouth of the Lord is the true word, and the door of his li(ht... * 1 11 5The 3ord6 never falls, but ever stands, his descent and his way are incomprehensible... )nd by him the (enerations spoke to one another, and those that were silent ac7uired speech...

or the mouth of the ,ost -i(h spoke to them, and the interpretation of himself was swift throu(h him.

12

or the dwellin(8place of the 3ord is man, and his truth is love.

13 #lessed are they who by means of him have reco(ni9ed everythin(, and have known the Lord in his truth. t is this $ind of hi"hly sym!olic and poetic lan"ua"e which scholars li$e Charlesworth identify with %esus of Nazareth. 0ut there is no sense of an historical person here6 the masculine pronoun reflects the "ender of this particular term for .word. in Syriac. * n some places a different Syriac word is used which is feminine.+ And how could a poet compose an .Ode to the :ord. without a sin"le allusion to %esus- life and death; 9ather# these and such lines as .'he <ord has directed my mouth !y his :ord. *Ode 11+ and .the <ord overthrew my enemy !y his :ord. *Ode 27+ represent &od wor$in" throu"h his own aspects# within entirely spiritual channels. Fet we can see how such thin"s point in the direction of an ever increasin" personification. &od-s :ord# his $nowled"e and salvation# inha!it and enli"hten the mind of reli"ious humanity# and it is not too many steps from this idea to %ohn 1:1=: .And the :ord was made flesh and dwelt amon" us.. 'his personification of the :ord is reminiscent of another common way %ews had of spea$in" a!out &od-s $nowled"e imparted to humanity6 namely# throu"h personified :isdom *see Part 'wo of the )ain Articles+. And in fact# thou"h the Odist avoids the term .:isdom. itself# he often uses traditional wisdom lan"ua"e and metaphors. 'he a!ove Ode 12# concernin" the .:ord#. is :isdom poetry under another name# very similar to the hymn to :isdom in Sirach *@cclesiasticus+ 2=. n Ode A1# we hear the voice of <ady :isdom callin"# the one who inha!its Prover!s: 2 )nd come all you thirsty and take a drink, and rest beside the fountain of the Lord. ndeed# the Odist presents her in person under another name in Ode AA: $ -owever, the perfect :ir(in stood who was preachin( and summonin( and sayin(! * 4 + you sons of men, return, and ye their dau(hters, come. )nd abandon the ways of the ;orrupter <.atan= and approach me...

1/

-ear me and be saved, for I am proclaimin( unto you the (race of 2od.

Now it is certainly stran"e that this .Christian. poet who is supposedly exultin" in the arrival of the )essiah would "ive us a scene of :isdom preachin"# !ut never a word of %esus- own6 that he could offer salvation throu"h the hearin" of :isdom# !ut !end no ear to the voice or role of %esus of Nazareth. t will not do to la!el this an ela!orate metaphor referrin" to %esus# for nothin" in the Odes su""ests this# and what we do have fits perfectly into more traditional %ewish modes of expression. Some commentators on the Odes *e.".# %. '. Sanders# The New Testament Christological %ymns# p. 11=+ have no trou!le reco"nizin" this passa"e as a portrayal of personified :isdom.

A &i*ine +oice
Some of the Odes possess a feature which has led to much co"itation !y commentators. :ithout any notice in the text# the vanta"e point within an Ode will shift from the voice of the Odist to a divine voice. Charlesworth and predecessors have la!eled these passa"es .Christ spea$s. *e$ ore Christi+. 0ut it would !e !etter not to !e so committal. 'his is the voice of &od spea$in" throu"h his communicatin" aspect# sometimes with a stron" :isdom flavor# sometimes with other features. Since one of the stron"est motifs of the Odes is the idea that the personified .:ord. of &od has descended and ta$en up residence within the Odist# it is natural for the poet to let that voice ta$e over and spea$ directly. t is si"nificant that Ode AA# 3uoted 5ust a!ove# spea$s in exactly the same terminolo"y and flavor found in the sections of other Odes which have !een la!eled .Christ Spea$s#. yet here the poet clearly identifies the spea$er as :isdom herself. :e are entitled to assume that the same "eneric voice is present everywhere# that no %esus of Nazareth is in mind in any of the poet-s verses. n Ode 4# this voice expresses itself in traditional :isdom lan"ua"e: 11 >nderstand my knowled(e, you who know me in truth& love me with affection, you who love... 13 )nd before they had e'isted, I reco(ni9ed them& and imprinted a seal on their faces. I fashioned their members, and my own breasts I prepared for them that they mi(ht drink my holy milk and live by it.

1"

'hat last line refers to the Iivine Cnowled"e which :isdom imparts# a"ain

em!odied in a drin$ metaphor. 'he voice of :isdom also spea$s in the .e$ ore Christi. section of Ode 11# tellin" how it had .captured the world. and "athered to"ether the scattered "entiles. ?ow had it accomplished this; * )nd the traces of the li(ht were set upon their hearts& and they walked in my life and were saved, and they became my people for ever and ever. ?ere there is no reference to %esus- sacrifice or even his teachin". t is the savin" li"ht of the $nowled"e of the <ord# conferred throu"h :isdom. 'he "entiles are saved accordin" to the traditional !i!lical view: that those who accept the .li"ht. of $nowled"e of the ?e!rew &od will !e welcomed as part of &od-s people. Pro!a!ly there were "entile .&odfearers. attached to the Odist-s community and his few lines li$e this were a nod in their direction. Or he may have !een voicin" the traditional expectation a!out the salvation of the nations.

The Son
0ut althou"h this is the lan"ua"e of :isdom *under the name .:ord.+# there is a reason why the poet does not ma$e her the sole voice of &od-s revelation. (or in his philosophical circle# :isdom now shares the limeli"ht with .the Son.. n fact# :isdom has !een enlisted in the role of divine mother to this Son. :e saw in Ode AA how the term .Bir"in. was used as a reference to :isdom. 'hus when Ode 17 spea$s of the Son !orn of the Bir"in# this is not an allusion to )ary or the Nativity# as Charlesworth and others would have it. ?ere the poet is presentin" a sym!olic picture of the relationship !etween various aspects of the &odhead. A"ain he uses the metaphor of divine mil$# with four divine persona"es involved in dispensin" it to humanity. 1 ) cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord?s kindness. 2 The .on is the cup, and the ather is he who was milked& and the -oly .pirit is she who milked him...

The -oly .pirit opened her bosom, and mi'ed the milk of the two breasts of the ather. $ Then she (ave the mi'ture to the world without their knowin(,

"

the *

and those who received it are in the perfection of ri(ht hand. The womb of the :ir(in took it and she received conception and (ave birth...

1 )nd she labored and bore the .on but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. t is curious that ?arris and )in"ana can ac$nowled"e Ode AA with its .perfect Bir"in. to !e the voice of :isdom spea$in"# yet here in Ode 17 they re"ard :isdom as contained in the fi"ure of the ?oly Spirit. 'his# of course# is !ecause they are drawn to see the .Bir"in. of verse > as a reference to )ary. 0ut this is poetic alle"ory. :isdom in some ancient %ewish traditions is a $ind of consort to the (ather6 Philo sometimes ma$es her a mother to the <o"os. None of these thin"s have anythin" to do with human history *nor are features of any Nativity story present+. 'hey are alle"orical ways of representin" the wor$in"s of Ieity. 'he first century was an era of philosophical reflection on the Son# and it is no surprise that the Odist wor$s him into his poetry and philosophy. * t was the presence of such mystical thin$in" in the air of the time which helped pave the way to the creation of .historical. tales of actual !irth of a human son to a human mother.+ n any case# whatever way &od communicates and redeems# the end result is the transmission of his $nowled"e# which itself !estows perfection and salvation *as verse / conveys+. 'he &ospel Son puts in no appearance here# nor does any idea of a salvation effected !y his death and resurrection.

,otifs of Persecution
Ode 24# in fact# in its .divine voice. section# is incompati!le with such a death. f this is Christ spea$in"# what is meant !y this line; 11 )nd they sou(ht my death but were unsuccessful, because I was older than their memory... 'his is one of the Odes which alludes to persecution. <i$e the ancient Psalmist# this writer has $nown the hostility of the world. ?ere he transfers the role of the persecuted onto the divine voice of :isdom or the Son *neither is specified+# for &od in his communication with the world has everDin the view of the reli"ious mindD!een attac$ed and re5ected. *'he re5ection of &od-s :isdom is a motif found throu"hout %ewish writin"s.+ 'he !eliever always re"ards the re5ection of himself as the re5ection of the &od he is representin". And since in the Odes the

:ord of &od is seen as dwellin" within the spea$er# the two suffer a mutual persecution. Althou"h Charlesworth includes this passa"e as an example of those which address %esus- sufferin" and death# there is in this picture of re5ection no reference to any crucifixion. A few lines are clearly drawn from scripture: 1" )nd they surrounded me like mad do(s, who i(norantly attack their masters. 'his is a !orrowin" from Psalm 22# verse 1>. 'he Psalm-s verse 14 appears in this line: 11c and in vain did they cast lots a(ainst me. t is si"nificant that such an ima"e is in no way similar to its use in the &ospels# where it is part of the scene at the foot of the cross. 'he same $ind of !i!lical ima"ery is found in another .persecution. Ode# No. A1. 'he openin" of the .divine voice. section *verses > to 1A+ is stron"ly :isdom flavored# appealin" to those who have !een afflicted. ?ere the Odist portrays the divine fi"ure as havin" under"one a similar affliction and re5ectionD!ut no death. @ven so# to some this con5ures up an echo of the &ospel trial and crucifixion scene. Fet verse A ma$es it clear that the Odist is simply rewor$in" the sentiments of Psalm 22# allusions to which a!ound in this Ode. deas of .condemnation#. .dividin" my spoil#. .holdin" my peace#. .!earin" their !itterness. are all drawn from the Psalms. 'he trap commentators fall into is to see such thin"s as representin" in poetic allusion the incidents portrayed in the &ospels. 0ut the &ospel motifs are themselves drawn from the same source that served the Odist: the holy scriptures# which presented %ewish interpreters# preachers and mystics with a universe of meanin" and detail# a window onto the spiritual realm of &od. 'he sta"e represented !y the Odes has not yet coalesced all this scriptural ima"ery a!out divine intermediary fi"ures and forces# such as :isdom and the Son# into the experiences of a human incarnation who had recently lived on earth.

Approaching Incarnation
0ut there are metaphorical intimations of incarnation in the Odes# and to understand these is to understand the philosophical route Christianity too$ in arrivin" at the human %esus of Nazareth. :e will focus on two Odes# Nos. 8 and 2A. <et-s start with the later one: " 3alk in the knowled(e of the ,ost -i(h and you shall know the (race of the Lord (enerously...

$ 4

)nd his thou(ht was like a letter, and his will descended from on hi(h... )nd many hands rushed to the letter, to sei9e it and to take it and read it.

A"ain# it is &od-s $nowled"e which saves. ?ow has it reached humanity; Somethin" from &od descends to earth: his thou"ht# his will. Personified :isdom# with her 5ourneys to the world and her appeals to the sons and dau"hters of men to hear her *in Prover!s and other writin"s+ are an expression of this fundamental idea. ?ere the Odist uses the metaphor of a letter containin" the thou"ht of &od. 'his letter suffers opposition6 an inimical wheel runs over it. 0ut the letter triumphs and is !roadcast to the world. 'hen the Odist introduces a personification. 'he .head. of the letter is revealed as 11b even the .on of Truth from the ,ost -i(h ather. nstead of restrictin" himself to the more traditional ima"ery for the channel of Iivine Cnowled"e# the fi"ure of :isdom# the poet here la!els it .the Son#. the Son that is 'ruth# or rather# &od-s 'ruth that is the Son. 'he .first,!orn. of &od# his primary emanation# sometimes his .only,!e"otten.# is a fi"ure in contemporary reli"ious philosophy# %ewish and &ree$# which represents the $nowled"e a!out himself that the ultimate &od "ives off# the intermediary force which allows humanity to $now a transcendent &od *see Part 'wo+. 'he Son is the .head. of &od-s emanations. ?e is the channel throu"h which &od-s "race and salvation flow. 'hou"h the Odist has no 3ualms a!out directin" his expressions of love to the <ord himself# on some occasions he spea$s of his love for the Son. 0oth are present in Ode A: 3 or I should not have known how to love the Lord 5i.e., 2od6 if he had not loved me... $ 4 has I love the #eloved and my soul loves him, and where his rest is, there also am I... I have been united 5to 2od6 because the lover

found the #eloved, because I love him that is the .on, I shall become a son.

'he 0eloved is a traditional term *mostly found in Iiaspora %udaism+ applied to someone !eloved !y &od# such as the )essiah or srael as a whole. ?ere it is used of the Son# sym!olizin" the lovin" aspect of &od. <ater it was applied to the fi"ure of %esus. 'hese verses convey the stron" impression that &od and the Son are so closely associated that the latter is simply an aspect of the former and not a distinct persona"e. n fact# verse 11 clearly identifies this Son and his role# one virtually identical to personified :isdom: 1/ This is the .pirit of the Lord, which is not false, which teaches the sons of men to know his ways. Surely here# if the Odist had any %esus of Nazareth in mind# he would have defined the Son in some way which would include a reference to his earthly identity or features. nstead# the Odes reflect a sta"e of thou"ht in which the Spirit of &od# the divine will and word that descends from on hi"h and "ives humanity revelation of himself# is styled .the Son.. ?e has a!sor!ed and supplanted the more traditional :isdom fi"ure# thou"h still retainin" her lan"ua"e. n Ode 8# sometimes referred to as an .incarnational Ode#. the face of this Son is fi"uratively present# for the poet introduces the idea that &od# in sendin" his $nowled"e to the world# assumes a li$eness to humanity. 3 -e 52od6 has (enerously shown himself to me in his simplicity, because his kindness has diminished his (randeur. " on. $ * him. turn -e became like me that I mi(ht receive him. In form 5or essence, ima(e6 that I mi(ht put him )nd I trembled not when I saw him because he was (racious to me. Like my nature he became, that I mi(ht understand )nd like my form 5essence, ima(e6 that I mi(ht not away from him. <est it !e thou"ht that such sentiments su""est a poetic allusion to %esus of Nazareth# we must not lose si"ht of certain thin"s. 'he Odist is not introducin"

here any historical fi"ure who represents the form &od has ta$en on. 9ather# it is &od himself who under"oes the transformation6 it is &od to whom the poet is relatin"# not %esus. 'his fits !etter the idea !ehind the poetic metaphor: &od# in approachin" humanity with his $nowled"e# allows humanity to understand him !y assumin" human conceptions. All philosophers !elieved that the true nature of &od was utterly alien to anythin" the human mind could comprehend# and so he had to .translate himself. into concepts the material world was familiar with. 'his in itself was .a diminishin" of his "reatness. *verse A+# and it would explain the meanin" !ehind the word .sacrifice. which appears in verse 11: .. . .allowed me to !enefit from his sacrifice.. 'his sacrifice is not a !lood one# !ut the surrender of &od-s perfection to approach humanity. Charlesworth admits that this word is present only here in the Odes# and that no allusion can !e found anywhere to the ideas of sin# repentance or for"iveness. 0esides# ?arris and )in"ana point out that the word also means .favor. or ."ift.. 'hus# the standard Christian concept of why &od too$ on the form of %esus *or sent his Son to assume human form+ is completely missin" here: namely# to suffer and die and provide an atonin" salvation. nstead# &od !ecomes li$e the Odist so that . mi"ht understand him#. that . mi"ht put him on.. *.<i$e a "arment#. says Ode 11:11.+ ?ardly a reference to an historical fi"ure6 and any human teacher idea is nota!ly missin". Berse 12 of Ode 8 tells us why &od sent his Son: 12 -e has allowed him to appear to them that are his own& in order that they may reco(ni9e him that made them. Note that this Son appears only to the !elievin" elect. 'he Son is &od disclosin" himself !y revelation. Only !y &od approachin" the human !ein" in ways that can !e understood is the poet a!le to receive &od into himself. 'his ta$in" on of &od# even an in"estin" of &od# is one of the primary mystical ima"es of the Odes# often expressed in metaphors of food and drin$. nstead of the more common ima"ery of an out,of,!ody ascent to heaven# this mystic sees &od descendin" to him *sometimes expressed in the fi"ure of the Son or 0eloved+ and enterin" him as fi"urative nourishment. 'he divine voice even declares that !elievers are .my mem!ers and was their head. *Ode 18:1>+# terms very much li$e Paul-s mystical view of the spiritual Christ. 'his .incarnational. Ode *8+ is full of :isdom ima"ery reminiscent of Prover!s# which stren"thens the interpretation that the .form. &od has ta$en on is not %esus of Nazareth !ut rather a personification li$e :isdom# under the name of .Son. or .:ord.. A $ey verse in the Ode# 1$ or by him he was served

and he was pleased by the .on, is almost certainly derived from Prover!s 4:A1# in which :isdom spea$s of her time when she served as &od-s assistant in creation: .'hen was at his side each day# his darlin" and deli"ht.. 'hat no %esus of Nazareth is in mind seems clear when the poet "oes on to detail the conse3uences of &od-s assumption of his .form. or .nature.: 1* )nd because of his salvation he 52od6 will possess everythin( and the ,ost -i(h will be known by his holy ones... 2/ 21 )nd hatred will be removed from the earth, and 5alon(6 with 0ealousy it will be drowned. or i(norance was destroyed upon it 5the earth6 because the knowled(e of the Lord came upon it.

Once a"ain the poet shows us that his focus is on &od and the salvation that comes upon the earth throu"h the $nowled"e of him which descends from on hi"h. ?e has "one so far as to style this $nowled"e somethin" personified in a .Son. and similar to the li$eness of humanity# !ut any resem!lance to the role of the &ospel %esus ends there. Another .incarnational. Ode carries the idea of .li$eness to humanity. a little further. Ode =1:11,1/ is an ela!orate metaphor for the $nowled"e of &od descendin" to men and women in a personified form: 11 )nd his 3ord is with us in all our way, the .avior who (ives life and does not re0ect ourselves! 12 13 1" 1$ The ,an who humbled himself, and was e'alted by his own ri(hteousness. The .on of the ,ost -i(h appeared in the perfection of his ather. )nd li(ht dawned from the 3ord that was before time in him.

The ,essiah in truth is one. )nd he was known before the foundation of the world,

that he mi(ht (ive life to persons forever by the truth of his name. (irst# attention must !e called once a"ain to the constant motif of the Odes: that salvation# the "ivin" of life# is conferred throu"h $nowled"e of &od. .<i"ht dawned from the :ord.. <ife is "iven .!y the truth of his name.. 'his .name. is the same as that attached to the (ather# as in Ode A7: 1 Put on the name of the ,ost -i(h and know him... where it o!viously si"nifies an aspect of the same deity# the (ather himself. Not even in this passa"e# which commentators see as the most "raphic allusion to %esus of Nazareth in the Odes# does the poet ma$e a reference to a death and resurrection# nor does he mention a ministry in which %esus preached such a .truth. and $nowled"e of &od. nstead# we have one more expression of the Odist-s ever,present idea that &od wor$s throu"h spiritual dimensions of himself to !rin" li"ht and truth to the world. As for verse 12# it is not as pro!lematic as it mi"ht appear. Esin" the term .)an. is only a little more dramatic than Ode 8-s line *see a!ove+ that &od .!ecame li$e me that mi"ht receive him.. n poetry many thin"s are possi!le# and the philosophical literature of the time occasionally contains Platonic,type ideas which call &od or some su!ordinate divine fi"ure .)an. *anthropos+ in the sense of an deal or prototypic man# a .heavenly )an.. Such a .man. was envisioned as entirely spiritual *as# for example# !y Philo in Allegorical +nterpretation of the 4aw 1#A1+. ?e was a part of the &odhead or heavenly scene. 'hat this .)an. hum!led himself rephrases another idea in the a!ove passa"e from Ode 8# that &od in revealin" himself in a form which could !e understood was .diminishin" his "reatness.. :e can see a related expression of this in a further developed form *with the idea of death added+ in the christolo"ical hymn of Philippians 2:>,11. Berse 12! parallels the motif of exaltation in the latter part of that hymn. 0ut to su""est that it refers to %esus- resurrection is un5ustified# not the least !ecause no idea precedin" it can !e pressed into si"nifyin" death.

The ,essiah
'his Ode is also one of the few occasions when the poet uses the term .)essiah. *Anointed One+. ?ere it is a synonym for .:ord. or .Son#. and is yet another item in the Odist-s repertoire to refer to the communicatin" and savin" aspects of &od. <i$e :isdom# the )essiah is pre,existent# .!efore time. with the (ather# and .$nown !efore the foundation of the world#. attri!utes "iven to the spiritual Christ in some Pauline letters.

'he nature of this .)essiah. is evident in other Odes. Ode 7 contains these lines: 3 The word of the Lord and his desires, the holy thou(ht which he has thou(ht concernin( his ,essiah. " or in the will of the Lord is your life, and his purpose is eternal life, and your end is incorruptible.

?ere the )essiah is clearly associated with the concepts of .the word of the <ord. and his .will.6 the )essiah is .the thou"ht he has thou"ht.. Such thin"s hardly represent the independent fi"ure of an historical %esus of Nazareth. And how any Christian could have said that eternal life rests in &od-s .will#. with no clearer reference to %esus# would !e difficult to fathom. 'hat the )essiah is to !e e3uated with some mediatorial aspect of &od is seen in Ode =1: 3 3e live in the Lord by his (race, and life we receive by his ,essiah. " or a (reat day has shined upon us, and wonderful is he who has (iven us of his (lory.

'he ."lory. of &od is that stream he "ives off# the source of life# extolled !y mystic philosophers from Platonists to Philonists. *See @. 9. &oodenou"h: 5y 4ight' 4ight.+ 'his $nowa!le stream of "lory is here styled .)essiah.. As an aspect of &od# the )essiah also attracts the title .<ord.. n Ode A7# in spea$in" of ra"in" rivers that are dan"erous and difficult to cross# the Odist tells his readers *verse 7+ that the <ord *referrin" to the )ost ?i"h in the precedin" verse+ has already .!rid"ed them !y his word.. ?e has .wal$ed and crossed them on foot.. 9ather than an allusion to the &ospel miracle of %esus wal$in" on water# this is a poetic metaphor for the safe path over the difficult waters provided !y &od-s $nowled"e# a path for"ed !y the :ordL)essiah# &od-s spiritual# sym!olic intermediary. 'hese .footsteps of our <ord )essiah stand firm#. and provide a passa"e for those who would cross. ?arris and )in"ana admit: .'he description of the <ord-s wal$in" on the waves reminds one of &alilee# !ut there are parallel expressions in the Old 'estament.. A "ood point# !ecause the &alilee context is nowhere in evidence here. And when the poet spea$s in the final line of those who cross over after the <ord )essiah and .adore his name#. comparison with verse 4 *3uoted a!ove+ shows that this name is insepara!le from .the name of the )ost ?i"h.. All savin" fi"ures in these Odes

are insepara!le from &od. Scholars li$e to see the openin" of Ode 2= as pointin" to another &ospel incident. Charlesworth *"T&# p.8/8+ confidently declares these verses as .an allusion to %esus- !aptism.. 1 The @ove flew over the head of our Lord ,essiah, because he was her head. 2 )nd she san( over him, and her voice was heard.

0ut there is nothin" of a !aptism in this Ode# and what the followin" lines have to do with any scene !y the %ordan is mur$y to say the least: 3 Then the inhabitants were afraid, and the forei(ners were disturbed. " The birds took to fli(ht, and all creepin( thin(s died in their holes.

The Final -de

(inally# we will loo$ at some details of the last Ode# No. =2. 'he variety of emphasis and differin" ima"ery !etween one Ode and another leads one to wonder whether they mi"ht !e a collection composed over time# perhaps !y more than one person in the community# perhaps even reflectin" a de"ree of evolution in its ideas. Scholars have dated the Odes anywhere from the mid first century to the late second century# !ut the consensus seems to have settled on the period around the year 111. would hazard a somewhat earlier date# !ut anywhere in the latter first century would fit with the picture of the Odes- relationship to the writin"s of the %ohannine community# and to the Iead Sea Scrolls which were placed in the Jumran caves durin" the first %ewish :ar. Ode =2 opens with lines very similar to the little Ode 28 we loo$ed at earlier when searchin" for references to the crucifixion: 1 I stretched out my hands and approached my Lord& for the stretchin( out of my hands is his si(n. 2a )nd my e'tension is the common 5or outspread6 wood... 5or tree! ;harlesworth translates this as AcrossA6 0oth Charlesworth and ?arrisL)in"ana point to sources from the second century and later which indicate that extendin" the hands *we would say the arms+ outward

so that the !ody forms the shape of a tree or cross# was a Christian attitude of prayer in some circles# includin" Syria# and si"nified the cross of Christ. 0ut is this what is !ein" implied in these first century Odes; Such a conclusion is anythin" !ut clear. 'he poet in Odes A/ and A8 descri!es this same "esture *only the latter is in the context of prayer+# !ut !oth are clearly directed toward &od the (ather# and neither spea$s of the sym!olism of a tree or cross. n Odes 28 and =2# a similar wordin" re3uires us to assume that the .<ord. in these two Odes is also a reference to &od the (ather# as is every use of the term <ord except when lin$ed with the .)essiah.. Now# the poet tells us that this "esture of extendin" the hands is .his si"n#. referrin" to the <ord# meanin" &od. 'his in itself virtually precludes any idea that the si"n is thou"ht of as the cross of Christ# for the poet would surely identify such a si"n with him# not with &od. Althou"h we do not $now the si"nificance of this "esture# spreadin" out the arms in the shape of a tree must therefore have !een a practice amon" some "roups when prayin" to &od. noted earlier that there are connections !etween this word and the wood,tree of Paradise# which sym!olizes a source of life# and that the Odes contain ima"es of the !eliever !ein" planted and !loomin" li$e a tree. ma"es of the tree of Cnowled"e would certainly relate to the fundamental idea the Odist expresses throu"hout these poems# that salvation comes throu"h $nowled"e of &od. (urthermore# in none of the Odes where this "esture is referred to *note especially Ode A8+ does the poet associate it with sentiments su""estin" sufferin" or atonement# nor is it ever put into the mouth of the divine spea$er. t is also difficult to ima"ine that a prayer "esture si"nifyin" crucifixion would !e a prominent expression within a sect which 3uite o!viously allots no si"nificance whatever to such a crucifixion. f the poet is extendin" his arms to form a cross# why does that cross never fi"ure in his theolo"y and soteriolo"y; ndeed# the "esture seems to have associations of mystic ascent# for Ode A/ says: 4 )nd I e'tended my hands in the liftin( up of my soul, and I directed myself towards the ,ost -i(h, and I was redeemed toward him. 0ut there is other evidence that this "esture has# for the Odist# nothin" to do with crucifixion. Psalm 44 forms the poet-s startin" point for the descriptive heart of Ode =2# and it contains this line *verse 7+: . have called upon thee# O <ord# every day# and spread out my hands in prayer to thee.. Such spreadin" out of the hands hardly refers to anyone-s crucifixion in Psalm 44# !ut is rather an attitude of supplication to &od. :hether or not at the time of the Psalm this "esture was

identical to the Odist-s# there is little dou!t that he would have ta$en it to !e so. ?arris and )in"ana *p. =18+ have compared the Syriac wordin" of the relevant phrase of the Psalm in the Peshitta *the Syriac version of the Old 'estament+ with that of Ode =2 and found it identical. Once a"ain# any reference to a truly Christian motif in the Odes of Solomon has proven frustratin"ly elusive. (inally# the attitude of prayer or supplication with the hands outstretched was not peculiar to Christianity. I. Plooi5 in the @xpository 'imes of 1712 points out that pa"ans too had the same attitude of prayer# and it did not si"nify a cross. f such a prayer "esture existed in !oth %ewish and pa"an circles# it would !e no surprise to find Christians reinterpretin" it as a sym!ol for the cross of Christ# and fairly 3uic$ly. 'he oldest instance of the "esture ta$in" on this si"nificance *thou"h not as prayer+ can !e found in the &ospel of %ohn. As the second century pro"ressed# the "esture and its new meanin" !ecame widespread. 0ut we still have to account for the line which the poet has added to those openin" verses of Ode =2: 2b which 5i.e., the tree6 was lifted up 5or erected6 on the way of the Bi(hteous +ne. Charlesworth draws attention to the fact that this form of the Syriac ver! .lift up. too$ on a special denotation: .to !e hun" on the cross.. 0ut ma$in" this point is surely invalid here# for in this verse it could not possi!ly have such a meanin". 'he tree can hardly !e spo$en of as !ein" hun" on itself. Fet it is this sometime connotation to the ver! which Charlesworth appeals to in interpretin" .tree. as referrin" to the cross. 'hat# and .!ecause the Odes are Christian.. All of this sounds more than faintly circular. f it is not crucifixion# what is si"nified !y the tree that was .set up *or perhaps stood+ on the way of the 9i"hteous One.; *'he 9i"hteous One may refer to the divine voice who !e"ins to spea$ immediately afterward# !ut this is !y no means secure.+ :ell# will not venture a "uess. Commentators themselves do no more than assume some allusion to the crucifixion in this very cryptic line. 0ut since this idea is nowhere developed# either here or anywhere else in the Odes# and since the usual reasonin" used to derive the meanin" of the cross from these verses has !een shown to !e faulty# such claims must !e set aside as preconception. 'he true si"nificance of these words# as of so many passa"es in the Odes# is pro!a!ly lost to us. t is also unclear 5ust who is !ein" referred to !y the term .9i"hteous One.. t may even !e &od6 at the very least# it is one of his personifications. 'he remainin" 14 verses of this final Ode develop an idea that has only !een alluded to at a couple of points previously and is familiar as a traditional theme in %ewish expectation: the !rin"in" up of the spirits of the ri"hteous dead from Sheol. @arlier# in Ode 27# the poet has praised &od *not %esus+# !ecause:

"

-e caused me to ascend from the depths of .heol and from the mouth of @eath he drew me.

'o 5ud"e !y the context# the poet seems to !e spea$in" fi"uratively a!out a rescue from persecution# althou"h he may !e modelin" the sentiment on the anticipation of a similar rescue after death. 0ut in Ode =2 this rescue of the ri"hteous from Sheol is a role he assi"ns to the Son as Savior. Such a tas$ was eventually "iven to %esus to fill the interim !etween his death and resurrection *and even to the spiritual Christ# as in 1 Peter A:17+. 0ut here any su""estion of such events is to !e found only !y those already convinced that they lie in the !ac$"round. n fact# Ode 22# which first alludes to the Savior-s tas$ in Sheol# lac$s any such features as death and resurrection# let alone an atonement: 1 -e who caused me to descend from on hi(h and to ascend from the re(ions below... As in the vision of the descent of the Son in the Ascension of saiah 7 and 11# where the Son is commissioned to proceed throu"h the layers of heaven as far as Sheol and then return# there seems to !e no su""estion of a life intervenin" !etween this descent and ascent. 'hus in Ode =2 the followin" lines must !e "iven a :isdom character over any &ospel connotation: 1/ I was not re0ected althou(h I was considered to be so, and I did not perish althou(h they thou(ht it of me. 'his is the Son who is an emanation of &od wor$in" in the spiritual realm# stru""lin" with the world-s hostility as :isdom did# savin" the !eliever throu"h the divine $nowled"e he transmits. 'hus there can !e no concept of death for this divine fi"ure here# ma$in" the phrase in verse ># .'hen arose.... hi"hly unli$ely as a reference to a resurrection# as Charlesworth claims *see near the !e"innin" of this article+. n the remainin" verses of the Ode this fi"ure is en"a"ed on a special mission to the underworld: 11 .heol saw me and was shattered, and @eath e0ected me and many with me... 1" )nd I made a con(re(ation of livin( amon( his dead& and I spoke with them by livin( lips& in order that my word may not fail.

1$ us. 1* 1C 2/

)nd those who had died ran toward me& and they cried and said, A.on of 2od, have pity on )nd deal with us accordin( to your kindness, and brin( us out from the chains of darkness...A Then I heard their voice, and placed their faith in my heart. )nd I placed my name upon their heads, because they are free and they are mine.

'hus the last word "oes not to any %esus of Nazareth and his act of sacrifice# of which there is not a murmur in the Odes# !ut to the name which confers $nowled"e and salvation# won !y faith and acceptance of that name. Eltimately# that name is the name of &od. 'he Ode ends# as they all do# with a .?allelu5ah..

Epilogue
No modern interpreter will ever "et inside the intimate meanin" and rich connotation of these Odes. 'heir mindset cannot !e recaptured in anythin" !ut the most "eneral way from the vanta"e point of today-s reader. 0ut to spray paint them in the colors of the &ospels is a travesty of restoration which effectively !uries what "limmer of meanin" we mi"ht derive from these "olden# su!tle poems. As certain strands of %ewish thin$in" increasin"ly saw &od as a spectrum# pulsatin" in an outward stream of activity# pulses of divine $nowled"e# the <aw# of savin" "races and redeemin" fi"ure,forces# they created for themselves an immensely rich spiritual dimension and a mystical universe whose su!tleties have !een lar"ely lost to us and whose outloo$ has lon" since ceased to spea$ to times which came after. ndeed# it was a phase which de"enerated 3uite 3uic$ly into somethin" less rich# less mystical# !ut somethin" more accessi!le# as elitist sects !roadened into popular reli"ious movements. Once this overarchin" spiritual canopy# illumined !y the sacred writin"s# descended to the material world and was translated into mundane history# it lost much of its wonder# and scripture went slummin" as the repository of mere prophecies of earth!ound events. One of the thin"s which suffered was Christian literature# for it was forced henceforth to tread upon the earth. would maintain that no poet to e3ual the Odist was ever a"ain produced. 'he Odes of Solomon are a priceless 5ewelled window onto the early development of Christ !elief# part of a .proto,Christian. stream. 'heir composer inha!its a community which has cultified the communicatin" aspect of &od# a layer

superimposed upon the traditional %ewish worship of &od# !ut still oriented toward him. 'here is as yet no firm development of an incarnationDcertainly not in .flesh.Dand the :ord or Son is pro!a!ly not yet perceived as a separate entity# only a hi"hli"hted aspect of &od# an emanation from him that serves a revelatory# mediatorial function# channel of the $nowled"e which !rin"s salvation to the elect. 0ut a complex of spiritual attri!utes# titles and feelin"s are coalescin" around this emanation# drawin" the !eliever-s and the Odist-s attentions# not away from &od himself# !ut toward a different way of viewin" him# althou"h the Odist often !ypasses this aspect entirely# $eepin" the traditional focus directly on the (ather and <ord. 'hese parts of &od are !e"innin" to assume their own personality# attractin" love and worship of their own. 'hey are developin" their own spiritual mytholo"y# drawn from older :isdom speculation and outside influences. 'he :ord as &od-s voice# :isdom as his helper and channel of $nowled"e# the Son as his only,!e"otten# his representative in the world# are mer"in" into an hypostasis# a stripped,off aspect of &od with an identity of its own. nevita!ly this process did not stand still# !ut led to the increasin" sense of a separate divine persona"e. )ystical ima"ery !ecame historical !io"raphy# and the immediate source of salvation passed from &od to his Son. :hen the evan"elists !rou"ht %esus of Nazareth into the li"ht# they "ave the Son a face.

Supplementary Article No. /

TRACING THE CHRISTIAN LINEAGE IN ALEXANDRIA

The .egetting of Christianity
:hen mythicists li$e Arthur Irews and %. ). 9o!ertson were puttin" forth their views early in this century# of a Christianity without %esus of Nazareth# one of the o!5ections to their position was the followin" claim: N*'hese writers+ must support their thesis !y showin" that there was a %ewish myth of a dyin" and risin" &od . . . the name %esus must also !e proved to !e the name of a mytholo"ical fi"ure# and evidence must !e "iven of a pre,Christian %esus cult.O 'his view was put forward !y :. (oerster in the Theological 1ictionary of the New Testament# volume # p. 271 *pu!lished in the 17=1s+. (oerster went on to state: N'here are no direct or une3uivocal testimonies to any such cult.O 'rue enou"h. 0ut such o!5ections are mis"uided and unnecessary. t is often ar"ued# for example# that the %ews did not possess the concept of a sufferin" )essiah. :ell# they did. 'hey possessed it in that line of thou"ht# al!eit a frin"e

one *and pro!a!ly made up of a stron" "entile element+# which arose to !ecome the dominant form of Christianity. 'he point is# there is no need to produce pre, Christian Christians. 'he %ewish sectarian movement which apostles li$e Paul 5oined and preached was itself the innovator. Paul# if not amon" the earliest founders# was one of its most creative and influential architects. Enfortunately# we donPt $now where or when the first %ewish *or ?ellenistic, %ewish+ thin$er rose up from a perusal of the sacred writin"s and declared that here was the truth: the )essiah was not a future ruler and human a"ent of &od# a priest or warrior# !ut his own divine Son# a spiritual fi"ure who was pre,existent with the (ather. )oreover# he had# within the spiritual realm# descended from the hi"hest sphere of heaven# suffered# died and !een exalted in order to !rin" a!out the !elieversP own exaltation. :e donPt $now who first applied the name NFeshuaO *%esus+# meanin" .deliverer# savior#. to such a spiritual Son and Christ. ndeed# we donPt $now if any one individual can !e accredited with such innovations. n fact# that is hi"hly unli$ely. :hat we do $now is that such innovators were !uildin" on contemporary reli"ious philosophy# !oth %ewish and &ree$. 'hey had antecedents. Only if the fundamental concept of a heavenly intermediary !etween &od and humanity was already part of the philosophical fa!ric of the time can we understand the "enesis of the Christian movement# or the success which apostles li$e Paul achieved. 'he creation of Christian ideas out of this fa!ric was a process which undou!tedly too$ place at more than one location around the eastern )editerranean# with various communities and individuals interactin" on each other over the course of an un$nown num!er of years. A record of such seminal evolutionary processes has !een lost to us# !ut we can see early manifestations of them in such thin"s as the christolo"ical hymns of Philippians *2:>,11+# Colossians *1:1/,21+ and 1 'imothy *A:1>+# in the @pistle to the ?e!rews# and in the :isdom,:ord,Son mysticism of the Odes of Solomon *see Supplementary Article No. =+. And we can "lean somethin" of PaulPs own application and rethin$in" of the fled"lin" ideas he em!raced at various points in his letters. 'hat it was all the product of personal study and ponderin" over the sacred writin"s# envisioned as the action of the Spirit in revelation from &od# is clear from many passa"es in the epistles. Paul $nows of the Son !ecause &od has revealed such an entity directly to him *&alatians 1:1>+6 the Son is the su!5ect of &odPs "ospel found in the prophets *9omans 1:1,=+6 and that he died and rose from death is $nowled"e Paul has received !y revelation throu"h a readin" of scripture *1 Corinthians 1/:A,=: see Supplementary Article No. ># N'he Source of PaulPs &ospel.+. At the hands of thin$ers li$e Paul# the intermediary Son and his role in salvation was ta$in" new shape. Consciously or unconsciously# Paul and his contemporaries were fittin" their

spiritual Son into the thou"ht patterns of the time. And these patterns can !e discerned. Perhaps they are nowhere so clear as in Alexandria around the turn of the era# especially in the writin"s of Philo %udaeus. Philo mi"ht !e styled a N"randfatherO to Christianity# for some of his "enes have !een passed down to Paul and others# "enes he himself had drawn from his own pro"enitors# the world of Platonic philosophy and %ewish :isdom theolo"y. %esusP "enetic ma$eup was richly endowed.

Philo of Ale/andria
'he city of Alexandria was founded in the year AA1 0C@ !y Alexander the &reat in his march of con3uest across the Persian empire. t was home to the lar"est %ewish community in the Iiaspora. ?ere flourished the most prominent center of %ewish learnin" outside Palestine# the place where the ?e!rew !i!le had !een translated into &ree$ in the third century 0C@. t was ar"ua!ly the most important point of entry for &ree$ philosophy in its a!sorption !y the %ews. 'he foremost philosopher,theolo"ian of ?ellenistic %udaism was !orn around 2/ 0C@ and lived until some time after the year =1 C@. Philo !elieved that the Platonic philosophy of his day *now called )iddle Platonism+ represented a true picture of &od and the universe# supplemented !y elements of the Stoic and Pytha"orean systems. 0ut Philo was first and foremost a %ew# and so he maintained that %udaism lay at the center of this picture# that the %ewish scriptures# as well as %ewish reli"ious o!servance# em!odied the very reality all this &ree$ philosophy pointed to. ?is extensive writin"s set out to illustrate this. Such an outloo$ had !een developin" in %ewish apolo"etics even !efore Philo. One of the principal ways of interpretin" scripture to ma$e it reflect &ree$ philosophy was throu"h the use of alle"ory and sym!olism. 'he text itself could on the surface seem primitive and uninspirin" and even !e seen to contain unaccepta!le ideas# !ut !y applyin" alle"ory# the literal meanin" of the words could !e swept aside# or at least supplemented# !y deeper meanin". 'hus the text could !e made to say almost anythin" the interpreter wanted it to say. )oreover# once the Pentateuch was seen to em!ody the principles of Platonism# )oses as their author could then !e trumpeted as the ori"inal promul"ator of the truths of the universeDunder &odPs inspiration. Plato and his fellow &ree$ thin$ers were declared to have "otten their ideas from )oses# throu"h the %ewish scriptures# which they must have read *in &ree$ translation prior to the Septua"intM+ !efore formin" their own philosophies. 'he first prominent exponent of this audacious piece of chutzpah was Aristo!olus of Alexandria# who seems to have flourished around the middle of the first century 0C@. PhiloPs relationship to Christianity has over the centuries posed a pro!lem for Christian apolo"ists. On the one hand# he shows not the sli"htest $nowled"e of %esus or the Christian movement# even thou"h he would have survived the

crucifixion !y more than a decade. And yet his ideas *which would have predated %esusP career+ have an undenia!le affinity with Christian doctrine. 'he solution# of course# is that Philo represents an expression of the current philosophy of his day# a syncretism !etween %ewish and &ree$# while Christianity was formed from a similar amal"amation of contemporary concepts. :hether any of the ideas in the early Christian catalo"ue were directly derived from Philo is un$nown# !ut !oth lines of thou"ht can !e reduced to the concept of the Son# the spiritual intermediary !etween &od and the world.

+ie%s of (od and the 0ni*erse

n Part 'wo of the )ain Articles# descri!ed how ancient thin$in" had arrived at the concept that an ultimate hi"h &od created and "overned the universe. 0ut as this &od in the minds of philosophers !ecame more and more transcendent# the pro!lem arose as to how he could have any contact with the inferior world of matter. 'he solution was to postulate an intermediary divine force or entity# an emanation of the ultimate &od# an NhypostasisO which too$ on its own character and identity. Stoicism# incidentally# did not face such a pro!lem# since it conceived of &od as immanent in the world# virtually e3uivalent to Nature itself or the total universe. 'he reasonin" or "overnin" principle within it was thou"ht of as the mind of &od# and this the Stoics called the <o"os. ?umans possessed a spar$ of this divine reason within themselvesDthe Stoic NsoulODso that they shared in &odPs nature6 they were an inte"ral part of the cosmic world# in continuity with &od. (or Platonism# on the other hand# the "overnin" force of the universe *&od+ lay outside matter# with the visi!le world only a distant imperfect reflection of the true spiritual reality a!ove# creatin" a NdualisticO *in two parts+ universe. 'he Platonists# too# adopted the term <o"os# !ut they used it of the intermediate force which served as the lin$ !etween &od and the lower world. 'he first tas$ of this force had !een creation# a process in which the mind of &od produced deas# and the intermediary a"ency# a creative aspect of &od which Plato called the NIemiur"e#O fashioned these deas into the material world *as well as into the stars and lower "ods+. 'he <o"os was also defined as the ima"e of &od accordin" to which humans were created# and it was re"arded as the on"oin" channel of spiritual communication !etween Ieity and humanity. Platonists "enerally did not re"ard the <o"os as a personal !ein"# !ut more an a!stract force or principle. As Platonism pro"ressed# the <o"os was conceived of as approachin" ever closer to the world of matter# to Nflesh.O Plutarch# in the later first century# associated the <o"os with the savior "od Osiris# and re"arded one aspect of &odLOsiris as operatin" within matter *+sis an# "siris# /Af . See %ohn Iillon# The /i##le &latonists# p.211.+

(or some# the <o"os !ecame an a"ency of salvation and too$ on decided personal characteristics. A very revealin" little document *1iscourse to the Gree*s+ which ended up !ein" ascri!ed to %ustin )artyr is pro!a!ly a product of ?ellenistic %udaism# perhaps written !y a &ree$ who 5oined some sect amon" Iiaspora %ews. ?ere are some of the thin"s the writer says a!out the <o"os and his faith in it. n this writerPs mind# it seems to have ta$en on the nature of a personal !ein":
NCome and parta$e of incompara!le Sophia *:isdom+ and !e instructed !y the

divine <o"os . . . the divine <o"os has ceaseless care over us . . . thou soul which has !een permeated with the power of the <o"os . . . *the <o"os+ ma$es mortals !ecome immortal# human !ein"s "ods . . . the <o"os drives from the soul the terri!le sensual afflictions . . .O *Chapter /# from the translation !y Adolph von ?arnac$# as 3uoted !y @. 9. &oodenou"h in 5y 4ight' 4ight# p.A11+ As &oodenou"h has pointed out# this document contains no hint of Christ or any su""estion of Christianity# and yet it is undenia!ly cut from the same intellectual cloth. :hat we have here is an expression of faith in a savin" power associated with &od# a fi"ure who serves as his intermediary with the world. 'he concept of Nthe SonO as a form of Savior is alive within ?ellenism# al!eit# if this is the case here# on the frin"es of %udaism. Philo adopted the Platonic <o"os for his own picture of the universe# callin" it Nthe SonO and Nthe first,!e"otten of &odO *as in 1e Confusione 4inguarum# 1=>+. ?e also drew on the fi"ure of :isdom from %udaismPs own intermediary theolo"y *see !elow+. n some !i!lical and extra,!i!lical writin"s# :isdom# a personified aspect of &od# was an a"ent of creation and salvation# pre,existent with &od in heaven. Philo occasionally ma$es her mother to the <o"os. 0ut such lan"ua"e seems to !e sym!olic only. Certainly# Philo envisioned no incarnation of this NSonO to earth. Philo could not personalize his first,!e"otten of &od# nor ma$e him even as distinct a fi"ure as the spiritual Christ who inha!ited PaulPs mind# for his %ewish monotheistic instinct was too stron". Nor had he any apocalyptic leanin"s# with conse3uently little if any interest in the )essiah idea. 0esides# Philo was a mystic# one who had achieved# so he !elieved# an ascent to &od6 he hints at intense reli"ious experiences which ma$e Paul sound earth!ound. ?is focus on the Platonized &od of A!raham could well have shut out the possi!ility of developin" any alle"iance or emotional investment in a su!ordinate deity. And so his Nfirst, !orn SonO remained a lar"ely a!stract principle# the power !y which &od wor$ed on the universe. 0ut he also saw the <o"os as an intercessor# !rin"in" it closer to ChristianityPs Christ. .'o his :ord *<o"os+# ?is chief messen"er# hi"hest in a"e and honor# the (ather of all has "iven the special prero"ative# to stand on the !order G!etween the two worldsH and separate the creature from the Creator. 'his same :ord !oth pleads with the immortal as suppliant for afflicted mortality and acts as

am!assador of the ruler to the su!5ect.. *(rom the <oe! edition# p.A4/,8.+ 'he power of the <o"os could# however# !e em!odied in humans# and thus Philo portrayed )oses as havin" !een the most perfect receptacle of &odPs <o"os in human history. )oses is the closest Philo came to Qincarnatin"P his <o"os# and this "ave him his own !rand of QdivineP hero. Philo made )oses the prime human mediator !etween &od and the world# the one who had received &odPs wisdom and revealed it to humanity throu"h the %ewish scriptures. *Not surprisin"ly# )oses in PhiloPs hands comes across as a committed )iddle Platonist.+ A divine,!y,proxy )oses satisfied PhiloPs need for an accessi!le personal deity. 0ut certain other %ews did not feel the same ri"id restrictions toward &od# and could envision their own hero as a separate divine !ein" !eside him in heaven. (rom the <o"os of &ree$ philosophy and PhiloPs Platonized %udaism to PaulPs Christ %esus is scarcely a stonePs throw.

The $ogos and Christ

t would !e impossi!le here to "ive a summary of PhiloPs philosophy which in any case he never laid out in orderly fashion. *Nor is it free from the occasional contradiction.+ 0ut we can loo$ at some of the thin"s he says a!out the <o"os and note the o!vious points of contact with Christian ideas. As @. 9. &oodenou"h descri!es it in 5y 4ight' 4ight: The /ystic Gospel of %ellenistic Ju#aism *17A/+Da profoundly ori"inal if imperfect feat of scholarship# ahead of its time and viewed with mistrust !y lesser mindsDthe <o"os was li$ened !y Philo *and other strands of ?ellenistic philosophy+ to a stream of <i"ht, 9adiation issuin" from &od# with sta"es of decreasin" !rilliance# formin" a hierarchy of &odPs powers and activities. Such spillin" out of the &odhead into su!sidiary essences was a part of the ancient development of philosophy a!out Ieity6 it eventually led to the fantastical inventions of &nosticism# the teemin" NpleromaO *fullness of &od+ populatin" heaven and even !rea$in" out into the lower world. Philo is not consistent in how he applies the term <o"os within his picture of the various emanations of &od# for he was not a precise# systematic thin$er. ?ow he handled his concepts in any "iven piece of writin" may have !een dependent on his latest mystical experience. 0ut the shape of his depictions can "enerally !e seen as determined !y features of the %ewish cult# even %ewish history and "eo"raphy# since Philo was anxious to show that the wor$in"s of &od and the universe were reflected in %udaism and %ewish experience. <i$e most ?ellenistic philosophers# Philo !elieved that the ultimate &od was un$nowa!le and indefina!le. ?umanity could reach and understand him only throu"h his emanations. 'he <o"os was &odPs mediator# his thou"ht expressed in a comprehensi!le form. 'his was the fundamental reli"ious need of the a"e# and PaulPs Christ# as well as the later &ospel %esus# filled this !asic role as the Son

revealin" the (ather. (or Philo# this emanation# this <o"os# was not a separate divine !ein". 9ather# it was the point of contact with &od# 5ust as the SunPs radiated li"ht and heat is the part of the Sun we experience# the Sun itself !ein" unreacha!le. Philo descri!ed the <o"os as the Nima"eO of &od. t was &odPs Nfirst,!e"otten#O the primary of his emanations. 'hrou"h this Neldest sonO &od produced everythin" else. 'he <o"os was the instrument of &odPs creation. n an idea derived from Stoicism# the <o"os !ecame the !indin" power which made everythin" in the universe cohere and function. A"ain li$e Stoicism# the <o"os was the divine seed within humans6 as the <o"os was &odPs Son# all human !ein"s were &odPs Nsons.O Occasionally# Philo mer"ed this pervadin" <o"os,force with the %ewish <aw in its ideal# spiritual form. n Christian expression# one can find common "round with Philo at almost every turn. Paul calls Christ the Nima"e of &odO *2 Corinthians =:=+6 throu"h him we !ecome N&odPs sonsO *&alatians =:/,8+. 'he <awDfor Paul a new one# supersedin" the oldDis em!odied in Christ. Christ is the instrument of creation *Nthrou"h whom all thin"s came to !e and we throu"h himO: 1 Corinthians 4:>+. 'he writer of Colossians *1:1/,21+ also calls the Son Nthe ima"e of the invisi!le &od . . . in him everythin" in heaven and earth was created . . . and all thin"s are held to"ether in him.O 'he @pistle to the ?e!rews# in a profusion of Platonic ima"ery *1:2,A+# declares the Son to !e .the heir to the whole universe# and throu"h whom he G&odH created all orders of existence: the Son who is the efful"ence of &odPs splendor and the stamp of &odPs very !ein"# and sustains the universe !y his word of power. *N@0+. And so on. None of it# of course# is identified with any %esus of Nazareth or human preacher of the Cin"dom. @ven the later 'rinity has its predecessor in PhiloPs occasional "roupin" of the powers of &od into three# and his other hierarches of the divine emanations. Philo stresses that these are aspects within a sin"le unity. n more than one of his wor$s *e.".# "n 1reams# ii.24+ Philo styles the <o"os as Nhi"h priest#O prefi"urin" ?e!rewsP central view of the heavenly Christ. Neither Paul nor ?e!rews uses the actual term N<o"os#O !ut their Christ !ears all the characteristics of this divine entity who is one step removed from the (ather. Some claim that Christianity is distinct from Philo and other ?ellenistic philosophies in havin" its Son incarnated to earth# turnin" him into a personal Savior. 0ut Philo created his own Savior fi"ure in )oses# in whom the <o"os had !een instilled. Althou"h )oses was not presented as strictly divine himself *thou"h some commentators su""est that Philo virtually does this+# it was throu"h the <o"os within him that )oses provided humanity with $nowled"e and accessi!ility to &od# and thus salvation. (or Philo# salvation came throu"h the attainment of mystic communion with &od# to !e achieved in ultimate form upon

death. Compare Paul in Philippians 1:2A: N would li$e to depart *the flesh+ and !e with Christ.O Philo even penned a prayer to )oses# one that !ears a close resem!lance to prayers addressed !y Christian mystics to Christ:
NO Sacred &uide# !e our prompter and preside over our steps . . . conduct us to the

hidden li"ht of hallowed words . . . display to us the loveliness invisi!le to the uninitiate.O *"n 1reams# i.1>8+ )oses had experienced# so Philo says *6uestions an# Answers on Genesis# ii.=>+# a second !irth which had no mother# !ut only Nthe (ather of all.O And at his death# )oses underwent a transfi"uration and passed# pure li"ht# into the presence of &od. 'he parallels to all this in the Christian portrayal of Christ scarcely need spellin" out. n heaven itself# Philo sees the <o"os as Na continual supplicant to the immortal &od on !ehalf of mortal manO *1i-ine /atters# 21/+: this is one of ChristPs roles# one exactly paralleled in 1 %ohn 2:1. 'he role Philo did not assi"n to his <o"os# however# nor to )oses# was a sacrificial one. Paul and the !ranch of the Christ movement he represented needed an atoner# a sacrifice for sinDor perhaps# at an earlier sta"e than Paul *represented !y the Philippians hymn+# a paradi"matic sufferin" fi"ure whose exaltation would "uarantee the !elieversP own. Eltimately# Christianity !ecame the em!odiment of the sufferin" Savior idea# and this was its "reatest NadvanceO *if we may style it such+ on Philo and ?ellenistic philosophy "enerally. Philo# on the other hand# represents %ewish optimism and positive theolo"y at its !est# althou"h part of this is due to a healthy dose of the &ree$ spirit.

Je%ish Personified Wisdom

'he 3uotation "iven a!ove from the @pistle to the ?e!rews is very close to a passa"e from the most important non,Philonic document to survive from ?ellenistic %udaism# one which was almost certainly written in Alexandria durin" PhiloPs lifetime# thou"h it is not !y him. 'his is the :isdom of Solomon# included in the Apocrypha section of most Old 'estaments. 'he un$nown writer of this wor$ came at the end of a lon" line of %ewish thin$in" a!out the fi"ure of divine :isdom. %udaism had its own intermediary fi"ure "oin" !ac$ centuries# certainly as old as Plato. (or the %ews# &od never !ecame 3uite so inaccessi!le# !ut amon" the scri!es of the period followin" the @xile# &od was presented as ma$in" himself $nown and wor$in" in the world throu"h a part of himself they called N:isdomO. 'his was no NSonO of &od# however# for the fi"ure of :isdom was a female. *'he "rammatical "ender of NwisdomO in ?e!rew is feminine.+ t is possi!le that one of her pre,@xilic antecedents was as female consort to Fahweh# under the influence

of surroundin" Semitic reli"ions. :isdom too$ on a status and personality of her own. Some scholars claim that she was never anythin" more than a poetic personification of certain activities of &od# !ut the lan"ua"e used of her spea$s more than this. ?elmer 9in""ren# whose seminal !oo$ 2or# an# 2is#om *17=8+ is widely cited in this field# says *p.11=+ that :isdom was not an a!straction !ut Na concrete !ein"# self,existent !eside &od.O Personified :isdom also represents part of a widespread tendency in Near @astern reli"ions to strip off certain aspects of a deity and turn them into separate divine fi"ures. 'hey !e"an life simply as 3ualities of a hi"her "od# !ut "radually# as more was said and thou"ht a!out them# they too$ on a life of their own. 'his was not an expression of the NintermediaryO phenomenon6 the hi"her "ods were not transcendent. 'hey simply dele"ated authority too efficiently and lost parts of themselves in the process. *'hese separated aspects are called NhypostasesO and the process NhypostatizationO. :e see an intermediate form of hypstatization in the .:ord. and .0eloved. of the Odes of Solomon6 a fully formed one in the Christ %esus of Paul and early Christianity.+ :isdom may also have !een pushed into the spotli"ht !y a scri!al esta!lishment which wanted to counter a fascination for the Phoenician "oddess shtar. 'he latterPs sexual persona and licentious cult had lon" exerted an influence in srael. One way to undercut the intruderPs appeal was to !orrow her features and turn them into somethin" that could !e approved of and controlled. 'he fi"ure of :isdom pro!a!ly owes somethin" to an expur"ated shtar. :isdom developed her own NmythsO a!out comin" to earth# althou"h there was never any thou"ht of her !ein" physically incarnated. ?ere is what the Old 'estament 0oo$ of Prover!s has to say a!out her:
N0y the "ate# :isdom calls aloud: Q)en# it is to you call . . . am :isdom#

!estow shrewdness# and show the way to $nowled"e and prudence. G shtar had also stood !y the "ate of her temple# thou"h her seductive call had !een to somethin" a little more provocative.H . . . 'he <ord created me the !e"innin" of his wor$s . . . when he set the heavens in their place was there . . . was at the <ordPs side each day . . . ?appy is the man who $eeps to my ways.O *(rom 4:1,A>+ 'wo important aspects of :isdom are featured here. (irst# she is Npre,existent#O that is# she was with &od in heaven !efore the creation of the world. And she is associated with &od in that wor$. An earlier verse# A:17# ma$es it clear that :isdom serves as an instrument in the process of creation:
N n wisdom the <ord founded the earth and !y understandin" he set the heavens in

their place.O 'hese are two of the primary attri!utes "iven to the spiritual Christ in the thou"ht

of Paul# pre,existence and a role in creation# and they were current in other circles as well. 0aruch A:A8 "ives us a line which# even thou"h ori"inally intended as a reference to the 'orah *the N<awO contained in the five !i!lical !oo$s of )oses which mainstream ra!!inic thou"ht identified with :isdom+# may have had a profound influence on the future:
N'hereupon wisdom appeared on earth and lived amon" men.O

:as this one of the footsteps on the path to !rin"in" a different NhypostasisO of &odDthe SonDdown to earth; Perhaps the writer of the hymn to the <o"os which was adapted as a Prolo"ue to the final version of the &ospel of %ohn turned it into a son" of the incarnation: NSo the <o"os *:ord+ !ecame flesh and dwelt amon" us.O *1:1=+ On the other hand# the writer of one of the documents which went into the composite 1 @noch# end product of some first century %ewish apocalyptic sect# too$ a more pessimistic view of :isdomPs so5ourn on earth *=2:1,2+:
N'hen wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people# !ut she found no

dwellin",place. So wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently amon" the an"els.O Iid &ree$ philosophy influence the early evolution of the %ewish :isdom fi"ure; tPs difficult to tell. 0ut !y the time we "et to the :isdom of Solomon we can see a clear and exotic !lendin" of :isdom with the <o"os. :isdom is now the divine power active in the world# the spirit that pervades and "overns all thin"s. She is the <o"os# !ut without the name. She is &odPs Nthrone,partner#O a step away from Christ sittin" at the ri"ht hand of &od. She# too# is pre,existent# an a"ent of creation. And consider this passa"e from 8:22,A1:
N. . . she rises from the power of &od# a pure effluence of the "lory of the Almi"hty

. . . She is the !ri"htness that streams from everlastin" li"ht# the flawless mirror of the active power of &od and the ima"e of his "oodness . . . She spans the world in power from end to end# and orders all thin"s !eni"nly.O Such thin$in" is clearly reflected in those openin" verses *see a!ove+ of the @pistle to the ?e!rews# definin" the nature of the Son as Nthe efful"ence of &odPs splendor#O the ima"e of &od and the sustainer of the universe. 'his document comes either from Alexandria or from some Palestinian circle with close connections to the @"yptian city and its philosophy. 'he christolo"ical hymn in Colossians 1:1/,21 *also noted a!ove+ is stamped with the same $ind of ima"ery as well: the Son as the pre,existent ima"e of &od# a force which created the universe and now holds it to"ether. Paul himself tells us that Christ Nis the very ima"e of &odO *2 Corinthians =:=+#

and in 1 Corinthians 4:> he has this to say:

N(or us there is one &od# the (ather# from whom all !ein" comes . . . and there is

one <ord# %esus Christ# throu"h whom all thin"s came to !e and we throu"h him.O Paul and other early writers are spea$in" of Christ in exactly the same lan"ua"e as we find in the !roader philosophical world# !oth &ree$ and %ewish. 'heir idea of the spiritual Son has a!sor!ed !oth the features and roles of the <o"os and personified :isdom. n readin" scripture and ima"inin" he is !ein" inspired to a view of &odPs Son# Paul is drawin" on the prominent ideas of his day and the deeper herita"e which lay !ehind them. Scholars lar"ely reco"nize this# of course# !ut claim that all these current ideas were applie# to %esus of Nazareth# that they were NinterpretationsO of him. Apart from wonderin" how such a process could have ta$en place in a %ewish milieu# the writin"s themselves "ive us no hint that such a process of interpretation of a human man is !ein" underta$en. One also wonders how such an interpretation could !e conducted# !y so many writers in so many documents# without once identifyin" the o!5ect of the interpretation. *See .Postscript. in the )ain Articles for a fuller discussion of this 3uestion.+ I. )oody Smith has noted *in %arper7s 5i!le 1ictionary under N<o"osO+ that Nit is not immediately o!vious why a man sent from &od# even the )essiah of srael# should have played such a role#O referrin" to the <o"osP role as &odPs a"ent in creatin" the world. ?e is so ri"ht. 'o consider that %ews# no less# could assi"n to a crucified preacher the creation of the universe is nothin" short of ludicrous. 0ut of course they did nothin" of the sort. 'hey assi"ned that role to the spiritual Son in heaven# 5ust as thin$ers !efore them had assi"ned it to &odPs :isdom and others to the intermediary <o"os. 'he historical man entered the picture only when the heavenly Son was later thou"ht to have come to earth and lived a life whose details could !e found in scripture. 'he :isdom of Solomon also shows us that the time was ripe for the <o"os and :isdom to ma$e a 5ourney into the world. 'he earlier <ady :isdom of Prover!s who Nstood !y the "ate and calledO is undou!tedly spea$in" metaphorically# in a spiritual sense# for the period immediately after the @xile would have !een too early to envision even the concept of incarnation. 0ut !y the turn of the era# amon" !oth %ews and &ree$s# the need for a transcendent &od to send his representative# his revealer# was !ein" acutely felt. So much of the world was unfathoma!le. :ars# strife and evil spirits seemed to !e winnin". ?umanity desperately loo$ed for aid# direction and outri"ht salvation. 'he need is reflected in lines li$e these# althou"h this writerPs hallmar$ is one of optimism *:isdom of Solomon# 7:11+:
NSend her forth from the holy heavens# and from thy "lorious throne !id her come

down# so that she may la!or at my side and may learn what pleases thee.O

n some %ewish circles# :isdom was seen as doin" 5ust that. She was thou"ht of as sendin" Nenvoys#O entrustin" them with teachin"s which revealed &od# his wishes and his wor$in"s. 'he extensive wisdom literature of the scriptures and other writin"s was seen as inspired !y personified :isdom. Sometimes these were presented as her direct words# as in parts of the Odes of Solomon. 'he "roup who produced the first layers of the document J also wor$ed as :isdomPs envoys *see Part 'hree of the )ain Articles+# and they developed the idea in a new direction which fed into the creation of the historical %esus. PaulPs Christ had also !een sent forth# the divine Son who was the medium of &odPs revelation# whom Paul calls Nthe power of &od and the wisdom of &odO *1 Corinthians 1:2=+. n some dimension# this Son had performed a redeemin" act. As yet# all this had happened in spiritual ways# in spiritual dimensions. Soon this would not !e sufficient.

In 1ellenistic Synagogues
0efore leavin" Alexandria with its array of Christian pro"enitors# we can ta$e a short loo$ at a set of writin"s which seem to contain within themselves the mar$s of evolution# chartin" the "rowth of the Christian or"anism from wom! to childhood. ?ere are telltale mar$s of the missin" lin$s in the fossil record. (ittin"ly# these writin"s are !uried within later Christian "round# the Apostolic Constitutions of the fourth century. Almost a hundred years a"o it was reco"nized that many of the Christian prayers found in 0oo$s 8 and 4 of this compilation of church laws and litur"y are derived from much earlier %ewish syna"o"al prayers. n many cases# Christian phrases have !een crudely spliced into ori"inals which clearly lac$ed any Christian content. 'hese interpolations can vary from a few !asic words# such as Nthrou"h %esus your Son#O to several lines which offer material !ased on the &ospels. Some seem more primitive than others and the whole process undou!tedly too$ place over a lon" period of time# reflectin" several sta"es in the evolution of Christ !elief. &oodenou"h *5y 4ight' 4ight# p.A1>f+ and others find similarities in the prayers to PhiloPs environment of ?ellenistic %udaism and place them in Alexandria. Others *such as I. A. (iensy# The "l# Testament &seu#epigrapha# vol 2# p.>81f+ offer the syna"o"ues of Syria as an alternate home for this litur"y. :hat is particularly intri"uin" in these prayers is not the o!vious# &ospel,derived additions made !y full,!lown Christianity at a later sta"e# !ut the more su!tle features which point to earlier sta"es of development. Alon"side# for example# a type of insertion which names Christ and %esus# there stand references to &odPs N:ordO or <o"os# !oth types fillin" a similar role. Passa"es li$e NAll creatures !ein" made !y thy <o"osO and N'hou art the (ather . .

. the cause of the creation !y a )ediatorO *Apostolic Constitutions B # A/# vv. / R 11+ seem part of the ori"inal layer# the product of %ewish circles which saw# li$e Philo# creation ta$in" place throu"h a more a!stract principle6 whereas another passa"e in a different prayer *B # A># v.1+ has !rou"ht this idea to the next# more specifically Christian sta"e: NO <ord . . . you created the cosmos throu"h Christ.O *Christ# at this sta"e# may still !e a non,historical fi"ure.+ 'he ori"inal prayers *e.".# B # 12# v.8+ praise &od for !e"ettin"
Nthy only Son# &od the <o"os# the livin" Sophia# the first,!orn of every creature#

the an"el of 'hy "reat counsel and 'hy ?i"h,Priest# !ut the Cin" and <ord of every intellectual and sensi!le nature# who was !efore all thin"s# !y whom were all thin"s.O * n the Apostolic Constitutions# this prayer is placed in the mouth of the &ospel %ames# son of Se!edeeM+ 0y the a!sence of any specific insertion attachin" such ideas to a %esus *historical or otherwise+# we can see this as a reflection of a very Philonic,type philosophy havin" nothin" to do with Christianity# despite close parallels to some New 'estament expression. (rom this early sta"e of <o"os# Sophia and )ediator# we see the NSonO pro"ressin" to the names NChristO and N%esusO and later to the &ospel mytholo"y as later developments were overlaid on the earlier litur"y. 'hus# succeedin" layers exist side !y side in these prayers. 'he prayers in their ori"inal %ewish form are commonly dated no earlier than the middle of the second century *as# for example# !y (iensy# op.cit.# p.>8A+# !ut this is inconclusive. 0ecause some voca!ulary su""ests familiarity with the A3uila version of the &ree$ Old 'estament# pu!lished around 1A/ C@# does not mean that some or all of the prayers do not have earlier versions or roots6 nor would all of them have !een written at the same time. 'he Philonic and :isdom elements# in fact# seem very close to the Alexandria of the turn of the era. Nor is there anythin" to prevent the transmission *recopyin"+ of texts havin" included alterations in wordin"# somethin" common to all early Christian documentation. f interpolations can !e made# so can an updatin" to new and familiar voca!ulary. * f this was the case here# it was fortunately not done consistently.+ t follows from all this that there is somethin" wron" with the standard view which sees these prayers as havin" !een Nta$en overO from %ewish sources !y later Christian "roups and altered as was seen fit or necessary. 'he prayer from which the a!ove 3uote is drawn *the one attri!uted to %ames+ would hardly lend itself naturally to a Christian sect professin" %esus of Nazareth. f for some reason the mem!ers of such a sect had adopted an extraneous %ewish hymnal of this sort# they would li$ely have altered it more thorou"hly to ma$e it more relevantly Christian. No# if such material was in use !y Christian "roups# it can only !e !ecause it was

felt to !e natural as it was# which means that such modes of expression had to lie in their own !ac$"round. 'o put it another way# such litur"y su""ests that Christian "roups "rew out of the ?ellenistic %ewish "roups who had ori"inally produced it6 they were %ews who adopted NChrist !elief#O that is# focusin" the older Son,<o"os,:isdom philosophy onto a spiritual )essiah who was !ecomin" more personalized# more sophisticatedDeventually one who had !een physically incarnated and suffered death. *'his process of evolution within a particular "roup can !e seen in my analysis of the evolution of thou"ht a!out the Son in the epistle 1 %ohn: see Supplementary Article No. 2: A Solution to the (irst @pistle of %ohn.+ 'hese chan"es in theolo"y came in over time# and correspondin" chan"es to the litur"y were made only as was felt necessary. @arlier expressions would tend to !e reinterpreted alon" the new lines and still !e considered relevant# not always re3uirin" a chan"e of wordin". f NChristO "rew out of the <o"os and Sophia# such earlier terminolo"y could often !e allowed to stand. One of the more extreme insertions *B # A4# v.8+ than$s &od *Nthrou"h ChristO+ !ecause Nyou have delivered us from the heresy of the Christ,murderers.O Such an interpolation is indication of the adaptation of these prayers over time. (or if a Christian "roup felt such an animosity toward %ews at the outset# it would hardly !e li$ely to adopt a set of %ewish prayers in the first place. Certainly it would not let stand all the pro,%ewish sentiments which permeate the vast portion of the litur"y. Only !y postulatin" an evolvin" community which has inte"rated these prayers into its own identity and expression# finally to arrive at such an anti,%ewish attitude in a later sta"e# can we understand such a situation.

The Wom) of Christianity"

9ather than the product of a proselytizin" incursion from %erusalem arisin" out of a sin"le event and historical fi"ure# Alexandrian Christ !elief is revealed as a philosophical evolution within more adventuresome %ewish,?ellenistic circles in that city. n fact# Alexandrian Christianity in its first century and a half seems to have "one down its own path# one leadin" in a "nostic direction. As :alter 0auer has pointed out in "rtho#o$y an# %eresy in Earliest Christianity *p.==+# the first si"n of an NorthodoxO ecclesiastical presence in @"ypt comes only toward the end of the second century. 'he tradition recorded !y @use!ius that the apostle )ar$ preached in @"ypt# esta!lishin" churches and a line of !ishops# is hi"hly suspect as a fa!rication desi"ned to fill the void# not much more dependa!le than @use!iusP declaration that Philo had contacted St. Peter in 9omeM nstead# can we postulate a more co"ent force wor$in" in the other direction; 'he @pistle to the ?e!rews# thou"h "enerally re"arded as a Palestinian *or perhaps Syrian+ product# is clearly cast in the Philonic,style mold of )iddle Platonism. t surely owes some of its lofty sentiment to Alexandrian influence. And what %ewish,?ellenistic milieu "ave rise to PaulPs view of the spiritual Christ; f ActsP

tradition that Paul came from 'arsus is correct# it mi"ht ma$e northern Syria# centered on Antioch# the immediate meltin" pot for PaulPs ideas. @dessa# near!y# may have produced the Odes of Solomon# perhaps a little later than Paul. 0ut traffic# in ideas and much else# !etween Alexandria and Antioch# passin" throu"h Palestine in the middle# was a natural state of affairs in the ancient world# and if the teemin" ideas of PhiloPs city# even of Philo himself or the circle he wor$ed in# overflowed in well,worn northerly directions# Alexandria may in fact have !een the wom! of Christianity. 'his traffic had !een "oin" on for well over a century# and the development of a divine intermediary concept within certain %ewish circles could have !een simmerin" for some time all over the <evant# until Philo !rou"ht thin"s to a !oil# perhaps layin" the "round for the !irth of a new movement. 'hat currents moved outward from Alexandria is evidenced !y Paul and Acts# in their picture of the apostle Apollos. NPowerful in his use of the scriptures#O *says Acts 14:2=+# Apollos represents an intermediate sta"e# a step !eyond PhiloPs impersonal <o"os# for he seems to have preached a N:isdomO )essiah# a spiritual revealer of $nowled"e. ?is messa"e was claimed to confer an immediate resurrection and salvation upon the Corinthian enthusiasts *see Supplementary Article No. 1: NApollos of Alexandria and the @arly Christian ApostolateO+. 0ut Apollos had little sympathy for a rival !rand of preachers who had derived a very different Christ from their readin" of scripture# especially that trou!lesome little fellow from points east who had "otten to the Corinthians a !it sooner and tal$ed them into acceptin" a )essiah on a cross# a Son who had died and risen from the deadDa foolish !it of so,called wisdom. No dou!t the proud Apollos# from the shinin" city of the Nile delta where learnin" was second to none and the "reat ideas of the a"e were "enerated# would have !een "reatly astonished to realize that he himself would end up as a footnote in history# while the dar$ novelties of the tenacious Paul of 'arsus would eventually "o on to mold the faith of the :estern world for the next two millennia.

Supplementary Article No. >

THE SOURCE OF PAULS GOSPEL

The Idea of Receptio ! "paralam)ano# i $ Co%i thia & $'()* $$(+) a d Ga,atia & $($+

The Call of An Apostle

Paul lives in a world of divine revelation. ?e moves amid wide,ran"in" and diverse circles of apostles who preach the Christ# none of whom show any si"n of tracin" their authority or $nowled"e a!out such a divine fi"ure !ac$ to a ministry

on earth# or to a "roup of apostles who had !een participants and witnesses of that ministry. As discussed in my first Supplementary Article *NApollos of Alexandria and the @arly Christian ApostolateO+# neither Paul nor any other writer amon" the New 'estament epistles "ives us evidence of the concept of apostolic tradition# or of the idea that anyone had $nown %esus personally. 'he latter idea is nota!ly missin" in PaulPs direct references to the %erusalem apostles# with whom he has important disputes6 and it is e3ually missin" in his discussions of the 3uestion of who is to !e considered a le"itimate apostle. n 1 Corinthians 7:1 Paul as$s plaintively: NAm not an apostle; Iid not see %esus our <ord;O t would seem that for Paul the mar$ of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary revelation and authority from &od. n 2 Corinthians 11 to 12# Paul defends his apostleship and compares himself to unnamed rivals *they are not from the %erusalem "roup+ who are competin" for the CorinthiansP alle"iance: NSomeone is convinced# is he# that he !elon"s to Christ; <et him thin$ a"ain# and reflect that we !elon" to Christ as much as he doesO *11:8+. And he "oes on in 11:= to reveal the source of all these competin" messa"es and claims to le"itimacy: (or if someone comes who proclaims another %esus . . . if you receive a spirit different from the spirit already "iven to you# or a "ospel different from the "ospel you have already accepted . . . Paul operates in a world of perceived revelation from &od# populated !y self, appointed apostles who learn a!out the Christ# and formulate their own interpretations of him# throu"h the Spirit. n all of his ar"uments over the le"itimacy of his position# Paul never addresses the issue in this way: NFes# $now others were appointed !y %esus in his earthly ministry# !ut the way in which was called is 5ust as worthy . . .O ?ad there !een such a thin" as appointment !y %esus# can we !elieve that this# or a lin$ to those who had !een so appointed# would not !e the ever,present !enchmar$ !y which all apostles were measured; Could Paul possi!ly have i"nored such a standard throu"hout the de!ates in which he en"a"es concernin" apostolic le"itimacy; n fact# PaulPs ar"uments re5ect the very idea that there could !e any deficiency of 3ualification on his part. And the implication of 1 Corinthians 7:1 is that# since his .seein". of the <ord is to !e re"arded as le"itimizin" his apostleship and this .seein". was entirely visionary# the le"itimacy of the others he is comparin" himself to# which includes the %erusalem apostles# is !ased on the same measure# namely visionary revelation. 'hat this is the universal standard is clear from 2 Corinthians 11:14. Paul declares: N t is not the man who recommends himself# !ut the man whom the <ord recommends.O 'here is no su""estion of a separate !asis of authority or pre, eminence !ased on havin" $nown and !een chosen !y a %esus on earth. ?ere

N<ordO refers to &od *cf. A:=,>+# which is in $eepin" with the way Paul re"ularly expresses himself a!out his call to preach the "ospel. Acts has so imposed on Christian consciousness the le"end of the dramatic event on the road to Iamascus that it comes as a surprise that Paul nowhere refers to such an experience. *Note that PaulPs vision of the Christ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1/:4 is not descri!ed as a conversion experience# and the Iamascus road event is nota!ly missin" in his reference to Nvisions and revelationsO in 2 Corinthians 12:1f.+ n fact# Paul consistently tells us that it was &od himself who called him to !e an apostle. n 1 Corinthians 1:1# Nthe will and call of &odO has led him to preach. n 1 'hessalonians 2:=# he is Napproved !y &od.O t is &od# in 2 Corinthians A:># who 3ualified Paul to dispense his new covenant# &odPs actions which made him an apostle to the "entiles in &alatians 2:4. *'hose same actions of &od also made Peter an apostle to the %ewsM+ As for his $nowled"e of the Christ# Paul tells his readers in &alatians 1:1> that it was &od who revealed his Son to him# not %esus who revealed himself. @ven the pseudo,Pauline writers express thin"s in the same vein. t is the Ncommission &od "ave me#O in Colossians 1:2/. Paul is commissioned N!y the will of &odO in @phesians 1:16 in A:8 he is Nmade a minister !y &odPs "ifts and powers.O :henever all these passa"es were penned# it is difficult to ima"ine that the writers possessed any concept that %esus had called or appointed apostles# whether on earth or even throu"h spiritual channels. n fact# Paul clearly excludes such an idea in 1 Corinthians 12:24: N n the church# &od has appointed in the first place apostles . . .O No writer who had the &ospel picture !efore his mind could possi!ly have said such a thin". 'he "ospel which apostles li$e Paul preach is li$ewise never said to have had its source in %esus or his ministry. Paul constantly refers to the N"ospel of &odO *9omans 1:1# 1 'hessalonians 2:2+6 1 Peter =:18 condemns those Nwho refuse to o!ey the "ospel of &od.O Occasionally# Christ is the o!ject of the "ospel *1 'hessalonians A:2+# !ut its source is consistently &od himself# and it comes to the minds of apostles li$e Paul throu"h the channel of &odPs Spirit. Iid the word of &od ori"inate with you; Or are you the only people to whom it came; f anyone claims to !e inspired or a prophet# let him reco"nize that what write has the <ordPs authority. G1 Corinthians 1=:A>,A4H

A (ospel of Prime Importance

'he a!ove verses from 1 Corinthians come a few sentences !efore a passa"e which many re"ard as the most important in all the Pauline epistles. n 1 Corinthians 1/:A,4# Paul states his !asic "ospel# followin" it with a list of NappearancesO of the risen Christ to various people in %erusalem# culminatin" in PaulPs own# similar experience. :here did Paul "et all of this information;

(irst letPs ta$e a preliminary loo$ at verses A to 4 and "et a sense of their structure and the elements which ma$e up the passa"e:
3 For I delivered to you, as of prime importance, what also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 5 and that he was seen (ophthe by Cephas, then by the twelve! " afterward he was seen by over 5## brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep! $ afterward he was seen by %ames, then by all the apostles! & last of all, as to one abnormally born, he was seen by me as well'

On the face of it# the passa"e could !e divided into three parts *the three indentations a!ove+: *i+ the introductory line *verse Aa+# *ii+ the three elements of the "ospel a!out Christ: death# !urial and raisin" *verses A! and =+ *iii+ verses / to 4# enumeratin" the Nseein"sO *ophthe is a past tense GaoristH passive of the ver! horao# to see# here meanin" Nto !ecome visi!le to# appear to# !e seen !yO+. One of the principal challen"es in analyzin" this passa"e# somethin" which scholars have lon" reco"nized# is to decide the relationship !etween parts two and three. As the sentence is structured *it is a sin"le one in the &ree$+# everythin" seems to follow on the main ver! NdeliveredO in verse Aa. 0ut do all the elements of what follows have a similar wei"ht and meanin"; <etPs "lance !ac$ to verses 1 and 2 which lead into this passa"e. 'here Paul says to the Corinthians: Now# remind you# !rothers# of the "ospel preached to you# which you received *from me+# on which you have ta$en your stand# throu"h which you are saved if you hold firm to the word preached to you# or else you have !elieved in vain. :hen we add to these sentiments the phrase in verse Aa# Nof prime importance#O we realize that Paul is referrin" to a messa"e# a doctrine# which is so crucial in his mind that he sees salvation dependent upon it. t should immediately !ecome clear that all of the information followin" on the NdeliveredO of verse A cannot possi!ly assume an e3ual wei"ht. A !elief on the part of the Corinthians that Paul had in fact seen the Christ# or that /11 of the !rothers had done so# can hardly !e said to !e crucial to their salvation# nor can it !e su""ested that Paul had such an idea in mind. ndeed# some have felt that it is more than faintly distasteful to re"ard any of the appearances as havin" e3ual ran$ with the statements a!out the Christ# that they were an e3ual part of PaulPs N"ospel of first importance.O 'here must !e a division in emphasis# even in character# !etween what comes !efore# and what

comes after# the Nand thatO which !e"ins verse /. s there a way to see the two sets of information# the A,element "ospel of the Christ and the list of appearances# as followin" a lo"ical se3uence of thou"ht in PaulPs mind# each havin" a certain de"ree of NimportanceO; *:e can consider that !oth had previously !een told to the Corinthians and that Paul decides to remind them of !oth.+ Considerin" how Paul ha!itually uses the term N"ospelODas somethin" received from &od throu"h the Spirit# a messa"e proclaimed !y the apostles of his day each accordin" to the revelation he claims to have en5oyedDthe nature of the second set of information would hardly fit that cate"ory. And yet it could have !een re"arded !y Paul as an important element of what he has told the Corinthians. (or him *re"ardless of the reasons for the list formin" as a unit of tradition in the first place# if it is pre,Pauline+# it may have !een in the nature of Qsupportin"P material# a witness to the veracity of the "ospel itself# or perhaps a pointer to the power and presence of the Christ a!out whom such doctrines were !ein" preached. t is common $nowled"e that when self,styled prophets# includin" modern evan"elists# ma$e their claims to spea$ with the voice of &od# they inevita!ly support and 5ustify their claims !y an appeal to personal experiences of that &od# to wonders or miracles they have $nown of or !een a part of. 'hou"h other motives may !e involved in PaulPs enumeration of all these revelatory experiences# the need to QsupportP the doctrine could well !e the principal purpose for includin" them in his preachin" and his reminder here# and for stressin" them as Nimportant#O even if they are not on a par with the "ospel itself# nor crucial for salvation. A second o!servation needs to !e made a!out the list of appearances. 'here is nothin" to su""est that# in PaulPs mind# they were not all of the same nature. And since neither Paul himself# nor anyone on his !ehalf down to the present day# has ever claimed that his Nseein"O of the Christ was anythin" !ut a vision of a spiritual fi"ure# this has to imply that Paul re"ards the other appearances as !ein" in the same cate"ory. n other words# they were all revelatory experiences6 none were thou"ht of as encounters with a !odily,risen %esus of Nazareth. *'his has recently !een reco"nized !y modern li!eral scholars such as the %esus Seminar and %ohn Shel!y Spon".+ ndeed# the lan"ua"e Paul uses implies this very meanin". @ven the sense of NvisionO may !e too stron". n a study of the meanin" of ophthe here# the Theological 1ictionary of the New Testament *vol. B# p. A/4+ points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for !ein" Nin the presence of revelation as such# without reference to the nature of its perception.O n other words# the Nseein"O may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. 9ather# it may simply !e Nan encounter with the risen <ord who reveals himself...they

experienced his presence.O f what we have here is more an experience of ChristPs NpresenceO than a full,!lown hallucinatory vision# this would ma$e it easier to accept that so many individuals and even lar"e "roups could ima"ine they had under"one such an experience. t is far from clear# therefore# that Paul in 1/:/,4 is descri!in" anythin" more than a series of experiences in which many people# most of them within a "roup already formed for a reli"ious purpose# felt a conviction of faith in the spiritual Christ# experiences which may well have "rown in the tellin". mi"ht point out in passin" that this not only eliminates @aster# it means that there is no necessary chronolo"ical proximity !etween %esusP Nraisin"O and the list of visions# in fact no se3uential connection at all. 'he death and resurrection *and even the N!urial#O thou"h it has !een su""ested# e.".# !y %ean ?Krin"# that this phrase may !e a later addition+ can !e entirely mytholo"ical# revealed throu"h the sacred writin"s6 PaulPs repeated phrase Naccordin" to the scripturesO could !e so interpreted. 'hese people# at the time of the !e"innin" of the movement# simply experienced a revelation of or a!out the Christ and his spirit world activities.

2eception and Transmission

0ut we have thus far passed over the most importantDand contentiousDelement of this 1 Corinthians passa"e# and analyzin" it will carry us !eyond this chapter# even !eyond this epistle. Consider once a"ain verse Aa: (or delivered *pare#o*a+ to you . . . what also received *parela!on+ . . . 'he first ver! in the &ree$ is the past tense *aorist+ of para#i#omi: to hand over# to pass on# to deliver6 the second# of paralam!ano: to receive# ta$e over# learn or ac$nowled"e. Commentators are 3uite ri"ht in pointin" out that this pair of words is often# even usually# technical lan"ua"e for the receivin" and passin" on of tradition alon" a human chain of teachin" and transmitted herita"e. 'his sense is unmista$a!ly present in the first ver! of this passa"e. Paul is passin" on his teachin" to the Corinthians# and to everyone else he preaches to. 0ut does it apply to the second ver!# the NreceivedO element; 'he perusal of that 3uestion involves several interloc$in" elements. (irst# consider one of the difficulties we face if# alon" with almost all commentators past and present *operatin" on the assumptions of the &ospel picture+# we re"ard the Nreceivin"O as referrin" to the reception !y Paul of this doctrine and information from others# from apostles !efore him# and presuma!ly from those who are supposed to have $nown %esus. 'he difficulty is that it would ma$e nonsense of verse 4. As noted a!ove# the list of appearances are seemin"ly of a piece# includin" PaulPs. Fet if Paul is spea$in" of thin"s he learned from others# this would hardly encompass his own experience of

the Christ. 'his pro!lem# however# is not so serious since# as have 5ust ar"ued a!ove and will enlar"e on shortly# we donPt have to hold Paul to the strict letter of his statements. 'he main pro!lem# however# is decidedly serious. Juite apart from the specific ver! !ein" used and any claims as to its usual meanin"# we need to compare ideas expressed !y Paul in two different passa"es# the one here in 1 Corinthians 1/:A# and another in &alatians 1:11,12: (or would have you $now# !rothers# that the "ospel preached !y me is not the product of men. (or did not receive *parela!on# from paralam!ano+ it from any man# nor was tau"ht it# !ut * received it+ throu"h a revelation ofLa!out %esus Christ. Paul could not ma$e himself any clearer. 'he "ospel he preaches is not somethin" passed on throu"h human channels. ?e Ndid not receive it from any man.O f the ver! NreceivedO in 1 Corinthians 1/:A is claimed to represent such a thin"# then the statements in the two passa"es stand in direct contradiction to one another. &iven his passionate declaration in &alatians# it is not li$ely that Paul would turn around and say to the Corinthians that he in fact "ot his "ospel Nfrom men.O Certain scholars in the past have tried to "et around this incompati!ility. 'hey claim that Paul must have two different "ospels in mind in the two passa"es# or perhaps different interpretations or emphases. 0ut the words themselves allow for no such distinctions. 'he stated "ospel in 1 Corinthians 1/:A,= is pretty !asic stuff# the essentials for salvation. n &alatians# the N"ospelO is not spelled out# !ut the star$ness of the lan"ua"e more than su""ests that Paul is spea$in" of his !asic preachin"# and this is !orne out !y the precedin" verses. 'here he admonishes the &alatians *v.>+ for turnin" away and Nfollowin" a different "ospel#O declarin": N f anyone preaches a "ospel different from what you received *from me+# let him !e cursedMO 'a$en with verses 11,12# this can hardly !e anythin" other than his !ottom,line preachin" of the dead and risen Christ# as enunciated in 1 Corinthians 1/:A,=. :e are entitled to assume the stron" li$elihood that Paul would !e consistent in his statements a!out the source of his "ospel# namely that it is somethin" he received throu"h revelation# re"ardless of the particular ver! he uses. 'he unam!i"uous nature of the passionate declaration in &alatians must !e allowed to "overn the meanin" in 1 Corinthians 1/:A. And as we saw !y the early part of this article# such an interpretation is perfectly in $eepin" with all that Paul says a!out the spirit of his times and the dynamics of the early Christian preachin" movement. :e noted the complete a!sence of apostolic tradition# any idea of information or authority passed on throu"h a chain "oin" !ac$ to %esus himself. nstead# each apostlePs doctrine and $nowled"e of the Christ comes throu"h the

Spirit# throu"h revelation from &od. t is &od who has called Paul# &od who supplies the "ospel a!out his Son. 9emem!er that Paul 5ust !efore the passa"e in 1/:1,= has spo$en in no uncertain terms of divine communication: NIid the word of &od ori"inate with you; Are you the only ones to whom it came;O :ith such sentiments han"in" in the air# what source can we assume Paul is spea$in" of when he "oes directly on to state the savin" "ospel he has NreceivedO; 'o secure this conclusion# however# we must !e a!le to see the actual ver! Paul uses# paralam!ano# as compati!le with the idea of divine revelation. 'wo considerations tell us that it is. 'he first is how Paul uses the ver! in the &alatians passa"e. <etPs loo$ a"ain at the $ey verse 1:12: (or did not receive *parela!on+ it *his "ospel+ from any man# nor was tau"ht it# !ut * received it+ throu"h a revelation *apo*alupseos+ ofLa!out %esus Christ. Paul ma$es our tas$ a little less than automatic# since he does not actually repeat the ver! in the last phrase. 0ut we all do this sort of thin" in speech and writin"# and when we do# the natural understandin" is that we are silently supplyin" a ver! we have 5ust used# not somethin" else. 'he understood ver! in the final phrase a!ove cannot !e the Ntau"htO ver! 5ust precedin" it# since this would !e in clear contradiction to the idea of revelation *apo*alupseos+. :e are left with the most natural understandin" of N!ut received it throu"h a revelation of %esus Christ#O the NreceivedO !ein" the same ver! Paul has used in the first phrase of the sentence# N did not receive it from any man.O And in fact# this is how most translators and commentators render it. 'hus# in this one sentence# Paul has used the ver! paralam!ano in the sense of receivin" a passed on tradition# as well as in the sense of receivin" a revelation. 'he second consideration which ma$es paralam!ano compati!le with the idea of divine revelation is its usa"e in the wider &raeco,9oman world. As lon" a"o as Schweitzer it was reco"nized that: N n the lan"ua"e of the mysteries# paralam!ano and para#i#omi si"nify the reception and communication of the revelation received in the mysteriesO *The /ysticism of .t. &aul# @' ed. 17/># p. 2>>+. 0ut to claim *as Schweitzer and others do+ that Paul is not here !ein" influenced !y ?ellenistic usa"es and conceptions is to !e" the 3uestion# since such an immunity cannot !e proven. n fact# it "oes a"ainst common sense# if only !ecause Paul was himself a Iiaspora %ew and could hardly have led a life insulated from ?ellenistic thou"ht and expression. @ven in ra!!inic usa"e# to which the most fre3uent appeal is made# the idea of NreceivedO is not always confined to the idea of passed on teachin" throu"h human channels. ?yam )acco!y# in &aul an# %ellenism *p. 71,2+# refutes %oachim %eremiasP ar"ument that paralam!ano corresponds to the ?e!rew Qqi!elP which always refers to reception as part of passed on tradition. )acco!y proves that this is not so !y 3uotin" from the )ishna: N)oses received *qi!el+ the 'orah from

Sinai.O ?ere we have NreceivedO used in the sense of direct reception from the divinity himself. 'hus# it would seem that nothin" stands in the way of interpretin" the NreceivedO of 1 Corinthians 1/:Aa as meanin" that PaulPs "ospel is a product of perceived revelation from &od# !ased on PaulPs readin" of scripture# as he twice states. Some mi"ht point a few lines ahead to verse 11# where Paul says: N'his is what we all proclaim# and this is what you !elieved.O 0ut there is no pro!lem here. %ust !ecause certain others preach a doctrine a!out the Christ which may !e similar to PaulPs own does not mean that he "ot it from them. f all Christian missionaries are dependent on divine revelation *those who come to similar conclusions are readin" the same scriptural passa"es+# Paul can claim his own personal channel in this re"ard. And he may well have his own particular twist on what others preach. NIyin" for sinO may !e a specific Pauline interpretation of the salvific purpose of the spiritual ChristPs death.

The (ospel and the Appearances

Now we can reevaluate the full passa"e from verses A to 4. <etPs repeat it here:
3 4 5 " $ & For I delivered to you, as of prime importance, what also I received: that (hoti Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that (kai hoti he was buried, and that (kai hoti he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that (kai hoti he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve! afterward he was seen by over 5## brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep! afterward he was seen by %ames, then by all the apostles! last of all, as to one abnormally born, he was seen by me as well'

@arlier we noted that if NreceivedO were interpreted as a passed on tradition# this created a pro!lem with verse 4# since PaulPs own vision could not !e fitted into such an idea. n a similar way# we mi"ht face a correspondin" pro!lem if NreceivedO is ta$en to refer to a divine revelation# for such an idea could not possi!ly include the visions of Peter and the rest# or even of Paul himself. 'his information can hardly !e said to have come to Paul throu"h a revelation. @xcept for his own# it is o!vious that he has learned a!out these experiences from others. 0ut we have already determined that the list of appearances is to !e separated in some very 3ualitative way from what comes !efore# since Paul would hardly ran$ such information at the same level as his "ospel a!out the Christ# as !eliefs N!y which you are savedO *verse 2+. f some sort of closure exists in PaulPs mind after verse =# then the idea of NreceivedO does not have to carry past that point# and thus interpretin" it as referrin" to a divine revelation would not create a pro!lem. Can we "o further with such a line of reasonin"; On the face of it# the words do convey a sense of carryover. After all# the Nand thatO **ai hoti+ stands plainly at the

!e"innin" of verse /# in parallel with the previous *ai hotiPs# creatin" the sense that the earlier idea which "overned the statement of the "ospel also continues to "overn the rest of the passa"e. Enless we entertain the idea that somethin" has happened to the lin$s !etween these verses in scri!al transmission# perhaps a misunderstandin" !y some later copyist which led to an emendation *somethin" !y no means impossi!le+# we mi"ht face a potential anomaly here. 0ut thin$ there is a simpler explanation. One thin" must !e $ept in mind when analyzin" PaulPs letters# somethin" which perhaps tends to !e overloo$ed when tryin" to "lean the meanin" and intent of any epistle writer. :e can pretty well assume that most of the letters of the New 'estament are not carefully constructed treatises. *?e!rews is a nota!le exception and possi!ly some of 9omans# perhaps @phesians as well.+ And Paul did not physically write his letters himself6 he dictated them to a scri!al companion. *One of these# a certain 'ertius# adds his own "reetin" toward the end of the epistle to the 9omans.+ :hat mi"ht Paul have !een doin" while he was dictatin"; (or all we $now# it may have !een at the end of a lon"# tirin" day. Perhaps there were distractions a!out. Perhaps he was ta$in" a !ath. 'o expect that every epistolary passa"e has !een carefully considered with an eye to perfect clarity and se3uence of thou"ht is hi"hly unrealistic. Paul may have as$ed the scri!e to read !ac$ to him certain passa"es or even the entire epistle# !ut since the writin" was done on a continuous papyrus scroll# he is not li$ely to have said# except under the direst of circumstances# N9edo that part# didnPt 3uite express thin"s properly.O Perhaps no review was done at all. 'hus# we can expect va"aries in the construction of sentences and the se3uence of ideas# and indeed# there are clear instances in many epistles of such Qslips !etween cup and lip.P *'he "ar!led sentence in &alatians 2:> is a "ood example.+ :hat $ind of QslipP may have occurred in this passa"e of 1 Corinthians 1/;
3 4 5 For I delivered to you'''what also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas'''(etc'

n this se3uence of thou"ht# the ver! NdeliveredO is the "overnin" one# while NreceivedO is a secondary idea. t is the NdeliveredO word which introduces what Paul is "oin" to say. ?e is dictatin" as the ideas come to him. :e can !e reasona!ly sure that there has !een no advance plannin" or QoutlineP to the letter. n the precedin" verses# Paul has !een tal$in" a!out the "ospel he preached which confers salvation. :hen he !e"ins verse A# the idea foremost in his mind is that he is "oin" to remind the Corinthians of what that "ospel was and is# and as he !e"ins he also throws in the fact that he received it throu"h revelation.

?e then states the "ospel in its three parts. 0y the time he has reached the end of what is now verse = and the scri!ePs pen has cau"ht up to him# we mi"ht speculate that it occurs to Paul also to remind his readers of the visions which testify to that "ospel# to the spiritual ChristPs power and presence. 'hese experiences of the livin" Christ le"itimately follow on the "overnin" ver! Ndelivered#O for presuma!ly he has in the past told the Corinthians of such visions. 'hus# he can sensi!ly tac$ on another Nand thatO **ai hoti+ and continue with this further information. ?e either for"ets or i"nores the fact that the listin" of the visions does not lo"ically follow on the Nreceived#O !ut the latter was a secondary idea and anyway# this would hardly stri$e him as critical if he did realize it. @verythin" from verse A! on# the "ospel and the supportin" visions# follows in a lo"ical se3uence from the ver! para#i#omi6 all were Nof prime importance#O even if not e3ually so. 'he NreceivedO idea# intentionally or not# has !een a!andoned after verse =. :hen the scri!e came to read it !ac$ to him *if he did+# Paul may not have noticed# or cared. Perhaps he was washin" his feet at the time. dle speculation; Of course. Some mi"ht call it a !it irreverent. 0ut the point is# dashed,off letters that eventually "et turned into holy writ do have a "enesis# and we can !e sure that it is more often than not a mundane and imperfect one. *(or purposes of this ar"ument# have not ta$en into account the "eneral consideration that passa"es in 1 Corinthians# as in any Pauline letter# may !e later insertions or the result of various editorial emendations. ndeed# 1 Corinthians# in view of its very len"th and diversity of material# is a "ood candidate for !ein"# at least in part# the end product of an accumulative or composite process.+

$earning of a Sacred ,eal

:hen we !alance 1 Corinthians 1/:A with &alatians 1:11,12# and ta$e into account the picture Paul presents throu"hout his letters# we arrive at a compellin" picture of an apostolic movement operatin" solely on divine inspiration. n such a context# PaulPs use of the ver! paralam!ano can well mean Nreceived throu"h revelation.O 0ut this conclusion rever!erates throu"h another important passa"e# also in 1 Corinthians# one no less critical to our whole evaluation of the nature of PaulPs Christianity. n 11:2Af# Paul introduces the one scene in all of his letters which seems to lift a curtain upon an incident in the life of %esus of Nazareth. ?e tells the Corinthians this story# in order to dissuade them from s3ua!!lin" over the food and drin$ at their communityPs fellowship meal:
(3 For I received from the )ord what also I delivered to you, that the )ord %esus, on the night he was *delivered up+ (most translations choose to render this *betrayed+ or *arrested+: see below , too, bread, and having given than,s bro,e (it and said:

(4

(5

this is my body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me' In the same way, after supper he too, the cup'''

'hat openin" line is very li$e the one we examined in 1 Corinthians 1/:A# only here the ideas are reversed. Now the NreceivedO idea is the primary one and "overns what follows. Are we to allot to this use of paralam!ano the same meanin" as the one arrived at for 1/:A; 'here are several lo"ical and compellin" reasons why we should. Althou"h the words of %esus at the esta!lishment of the @ucharist may not !e part of PaulPs fundamental N"ospel#O we may well suspect that anythin" he preaches a!out the Christ would fall within the spirit of &alatians 1:11,12# PaulPs firm declaration that he has received his messa"e from Nno man.O Certainly# his use of paralam!ano to refer to a revelation a few chapters later# in 1/:A# does lend wei"ht to the validity of such an interpretation here. 0ut there are more immediate considerations we can draw on. (irst# Paul plainly says that he received this Nfrom the <ord.O f he is spea$in" of a passed on tradition from other men# PaulPs words are on the surface illo"ical# even a falsehood. f other apostles "ave him this information# presuma!ly the ones who were present at such a scene# then he did not "et it Nfrom the <ord.O 0y clearly stressin" that the <ord was the source of his information# Paul is denyin" any intermediate human step. )oreover# if such traditions a!out a <ast Supper *Paul# alone in the New 'estament# calls it Nthe <ordPs SupperO+ were circulatin" throu"h Christian circles# includin" Corinth# !y means of oral transmission and "eneral $nowled"e# and were in fact the source of PaulPs own familiarity with them# what $ind of impression would Paul !e "ivin" his readers if he seemed to !e claimin" that he $new of these words throu"h some personal revelation; Perhaps reco"nizin" all this# scholars have lon" tried to interpret the openin" of verse 2A in a different way. :e mi"ht call it Nthe !attle of the prepositions.O (or received from the <ord *apo tou *uriou+ . . . n the &ree$ of the time# when someone spea$s of information received from another as the immediate# direct source# the preposition NparaO is most often used. On the other hand# the preposition NapoO is most often used to si"nify the remote# or ultimate source of a piece of information. 'hus Paul# they say# if he had meant to say that %esus had delivered this information to him personally# would have used para. As it is# in usin" apo# he is referrin" to %esus as the originator of these words# as if to say# Nthese words came ultimately from the <ord himself.O Enfortunately for this ar"ument# these different usa"es were not strict. *See )oulton: A Grammar of New Testament Gree*# vol. 1 &rolegomena# p. 2A8.+ @ven the New 'estament contains apo used in the opposite sense *Colossians 1:18# Nas

you learned from @paphras#O and )atthew 11:27# Nlearn from me.O+ 'hus# there was no "uarantee that the Corinthians would have understood such a Nremote antecedentO meanin"# or that Paul intended it. 0esides# if %esus were !ein" referred to only in the sense that he is the ultimate source of the words# this "ives PaulPs statement another less than lo"ical cast. f he is "oin" to "o on to say that %esus spo$e certain words# why preface it with a separate statement which identifies %esus as the source of these words; 'his is at !est a very aw$ward redundancy. 'hus# we must conclude that Paul is sayin" what the words seem to ma$e him say: that this scene# which he has previously imparted to his readers# was the product of a private vision or inspiration comin" from the heavenly %esus. Once this is ac$nowled"ed# the way is open to re"ardin" the scene Paul creates as a myth attached to the spiritual Christ# a myth desi"ned to explain *as many myths do+ the ori"ins of a practice within the community# or at least# the ori"in of the si"nificance that has now !een attached to an older practice. 'o the meal of fellowship which is undou!tedly derived from the traditional %ewish than$s"ivin" meal# in a version *li$e the so,called Nmessianic !an3uetO+ which has apocalyptic overtones *see 11:2>+# Paul has overlaid a sacramental si"nificance !ased on a new interpretation of the meanin" of the traditional !read and cup. 'his meanin" is "rounded in a mythical scene which may !e PaulPs own invention# derived from a perceived personal revelation. 'he &ospel versions would pro!a!ly ultimately !e traced !ac$ to him. *:e should also note that the esta!lishment of the @ucharist is missin" in other places in the rest of the early Christian record where we would expect to find it# such as the eucharistic prayers in the Iidache# chapters 7 and 11# and in ?e!rews 7:1/,22 and even 8:1,A: see Supplementary Article No. 7: A Sacrifice in ?eaven.+ 0ut this Nsacred mealO and the type of sacramentalism it entails# are not of %ewish derivation. @atin" the flesh and drin$in" the !lood of the IeityDof any "odD would have !een a repu"nant and !lasphemous concept to any o!servant %ew# ma$in" it certain that an historical %esus could never have esta!lished such a rite or foisted it upon his followers *see )acco!y# &aul an# %ellenism# p. 77+. nstead# PaulPs sacramental myth is stron"ly &ree$ flavored# and his <ordPs Supper is very close to the sacred meals of the &ree$ cultic mysteries# down to the word he uses# #eipnon. Such a meal si"nified the union of the initiates with the "od of the cultPs worship# and a sharin" in his nature and savin" actDusually an overcomin" of death in some way. :e $now of myths that were attached to such cultic meals. 'he Sa!azius cult o!served a communal supper which sym!olized the heavenly !an3uet of the !lessed which the initiates could loo$ forward to after death. 'he cult of )ithras had an ori"in myth which explained where its sacred meal had

come from. After )ithras had slain the !ull *the Qsalvific actP in )ithraism+# he and the sun "od ?elios sealed a covenant !y dinin" to"ether on loaves of !readD some say on the meat of the !ull himselfDand drin$in" from cups which contained water and wine mixed. 'he "oddess sis was loo$ed upon as havin" personally esta!lished the mystery rites associated with her# and this included a sacred meal. None of these "ods and their activities were re"arded as !ased in identifia!le history. As for the QnarrativeP elements in verse 2A *Non the ni"ht of his arrestL!etrayalO+# there is nothin" to prevent mythical stories from !ein" set Nat ni"ht#O especially ones involvin" death and sacrifice. And if the Corinthian Supper is o!served after sundown *Paul does not specify+# the ori"in myth would li$ely !e placed at a correspondin" time. 0ut since so much of early Christian !elief comes from scripture# it would not !e surprisin" if this feature were dependent on PaulPs study of the writin"s. Enfortunately# he does not enli"hten us# thou"h 1 Corinthians /:8 does lin$ ChristPs sacrifice with Passover# whose meal is cele!rated after dar$. 'ranslators have a tendency to use the terms NarrestedO or N!etrayedO *the latter alludin" to %udas+ in renderin" Npara#i#omiO in this part of the verse. 'his# would su""est# is "overned !y &ospel preconceptions. 'he ver! means# in its !asic sense# to Nhand overO or Ndeliver upO and is a technical term in the context of 5ustice or martyrdom. n the &ospel story it can ta$e on the meanin" of arrest or !etrayal *as in )ar$ 1=:21+# !ut in Paul there is no need to see it this way. ?e uses the same ver! in 9omans 4:A2: N?e *&od+ did not spare his own Son# !ut delivered him up for us all.O ?ere it can hardly imply !etrayal or arrest. n @phesians /:2 and 2/ it is Christ who N"ave himself up on your !ehalf.O No thou"ht of %udas or of an arrest on Passover eve would !e present here. :e mi"ht also note that the &ree$ shows a curious use of tenses. 'he ver! Nwas handed overO *pare#i#oto+ is in the imperfect# which literally ma$es the meanin" Non the ni"ht he was !ein" delivered up.O 'his implies that the act of surrender was "oin" on all throu"h the SupperM t seems that Paul could hardly have had the &ospel scene in mind# and scholars who have noted this *e.".# 9o!ertson and Plummer# +nternational Critical Commentary# First Epistle to the Corinthians# p.2=A+ su""est that Paul is Nta$in" a !roader meanin"#O perhaps of surrender !y the (ather as in the 9omans passa"e. Curious# indeed.

Conclusion
:hen we allow Paul to spea$ for himself# rather than impose upon him the narrative world of the evan"elists# we find a consistent picture throu"hout the letters. 'he "overnin" force in his lifePs wor$# as it is with all the competin" apostles who roam the !yways of the empire preachin" the divine Christ# is the power of &odPs Spirit# manifested throu"h revelation and a study of scripture. No historical man who had recently !e"un the movement hovers in the !ac$"round of

PaulPs thou"ht. ?is "ospel comes from &od# and its su!5ect matter is the Christ# the intermediary Son who is the hallmar$ of the reli"ious philosophy of the a"e. @verythin" Paul has to say a!out his Christ %esus *includin" his features Naccordin" to the fleshO+ comes from scripture# that window onto the hi"her spiritual world of &od and his wor$in"s *see Part 'wo of the )ain Articles+. Paul occasionally feels himself in direct contact with his Christ %esus in heaven# receivin" instruction from him# as in that handful of pronouncements which scholars call Nwords of the <ordO *1 Corinthians 8:11,11# 7:1=# 11:2A# and 1 'hessalonians =:1>,18+. And he# li$e all contemporary Christians# awaits the arrival of this Son and <ord from heaven at the imminent @nd# when they shall set eyes on his person for the first time. n 1 Corinthians itself# Paul refers three times to the comin"# the Nrevealin"O of the <ord %esus Christ *1:8# 11:2># 1>:22+. n not one of them# nor in any of the other dozen occurrences throu"hout the Pauline corpus# do we sense any su""estion that this will !e a second comin"# the return of a fi"ure who had previously wal$ed the earth in PaulPs own lifetime.

Supplementary Article No. 8

TRANSFIGURED ON THE HOL.OUNTAIN

The /e0i i 0& of Ch%i&tia it1 A (enesis From 1ea*en
Confronted with the possi!le non,existence of an historical %esus# many today find it difficult to conceive of how Christianity could have !e"un. 'hat difficulty is not a new one. 'he response to a human man !y his followers# who were convinced of his divinity and !uoyed !y his perceived resurrection# was an idea which !e"an to !e adopted !y the third and fourth "enerations of the Christian movement as a means of explainin" the ori"ins of their faith. 'his myth came to !e em!odied in the &ospels and Acts. 'he story# however# is different in the New 'estament epistles. 'hese diverse writin"s were produced durin" ChristianityPs first hundred years# in different locations !y many different writers# from Paul on his missionary travels# to others in his communities who after his passin" wrote in his name# to several anonymous writers who produced little treatises or polemical tracts dealin" with local situations and crises within a wide and uncoordinated world of Christian !elief. n the second century# as an evolution toward the unification of that world too$ place# centered upon 9ome# these little writin"s were collected. :here lac$in"# they were assi"ned authors# usually drawn from the !ody of le"endary apostles now

envisioned as havin" !een followers of an earthly %esus# such as Peter# %ohn# %ames and %ude. *A similar process led to the namin" of the &ospels.+ n some cases# epistles may have come with such names already attached *they were NpseudonymousO+. 'hese names were "iven either at the time of writin"# when no lin$ of the purported author to a human %esus would yet have !een envisioned# or at some intervenin" time. n some cases# epistolary openin"s and conclusions were added# to turn them into formal letters# since such a form was considered to !e the proper settin" in which doctrinal and polemical material should !e presented. And universally# the %esus or Christ spo$en of !y these diverse and ori"inally anonymous writers was now assumed to !e the human man who had recently come to life on the pa"es of the &ospels. t is perhaps surprisin" that# "iven the widespread and !latant practice of revision# interpolation and invention found throu"hout the Christian documentary record# these writin"s were not su!5ected to a de"ree of rewor$in" which would have incorporated the new assumptions a!out an historical %esus and forever eradicated a more accurate picture of ChristianityPs infancy. (or these epistles are full of references to how the faith arose and how the movement !e"an. 9ather than a response to the ministry of a recent man# whom they never identify# or a reaction to historical events surroundin" a crucifixion and ima"ined resurrection# the drivin" force was seen to !e the Spirit of &od# sent from heaven throu"h revelation. Paul in 9omans 1>:2/,2> *thou"h this passa"e may !e a later insertion !y one of the pseudo,Pauline writers+ declares that he has N!rou"ht you the proclamation of %esus Christ# accordin" to the revelation of the divine secret $ept in silence for lon" a"es !ut now disclosed# and throu"h prophetic scriptures !y the eternal &odPs command made $nown to all nationsO *New @n"lish 0i!le translation+. n &alatians 1:11,12 Paul insists that he has received his "ospel from no other human !ein"# !ut Nthrou"h a revelation of %esus Christ.O 'hat "ospel# a!out ChristPs death for sin and his risin" on the third day# has apparently come to him from scripture **ata tas graphas# 1 Corinthians 1/:A and =.+ Compare 9omans 1:2f# with its "ospel from &od Na!out his son#O *ata sar*a and *ata pneuma# which has !een Nannounced !eforehand throu"h his prophets in the holy scriptures.O 'he way Paul puts it# &od has foretold &aul7s gospel a!out the Son# not %esusP own life and actionsM 'he writer of 1 Peter tells his readers that the thin"s foretold in the prophets related not to those ancient times !ut to the present. 'hey have now !een announced not throu"h any historical %esus and his ministry# !ut Nthrou"h preachers who !rou"ht you the "ospel in the power of the ?oly Spirit sent from heavenO *1:12+6 this Christ they preach Nwas revealed in this last period of time for your sa$eO *1:21+. 2 Corinthians 1:22# @phesians A:/# Colossians 1:2> and 2:2#

'itus 2:11 and A:/: such passa"es spea$ of the sendin" of the Spirit !y &od to apostles and prophets li$e Paul as the definin" mar$ of the present period. Only now has the existence of the Son and his redeemin" wor$# Nthe secret of Christ#O !een revealed# and salvation made availa!le as the end of the present a"e nears.

The $aunching of a Sect

0ut there are several epistles which "ive us an insi"ht into how# within this overall picture of the sendin" of &odPs Spirit and "ospel# certain individual communities amon" those which eventually dotted the early Christian landscape actually formed. :e can perceive a $ind of NeventO lyin" at the inception of a "iven sectarian "roup or apocalyptic circle. Anticipatin" a communication from &od# awaitin" inspiration while perusin" the sacred writin"s# many in the fevered atmosphere of the first century ima"ined that such thin"s had indeed !een forthcomin". :e will loo$ !riefly at two of these# then focus in some detail on a third# one of the most fascinatin" passa"es in all the New 'estament epistles: the so,called 'ransfi"uration scene in 2 Peter. (irst# the @pistle to the ?e!rews 2:A,=. 'he followin" translation is !ased on the N@0# !ut with its more fanciful elements removed:
A

:hat escape can there !e for us if we i"nore a salvation so "reat; (or this salvation was first annnounced throu"h the <ord6 those who heard confirmed it to us# =with &od addin" his testimony !y si"ns# !y miracles# !y various powerful deeds# and !y distri!utin" the "ifts of the ?oly Spirit at his own will. G'he N@0 in verse A reads: Nthrou"h the lips of the <ord himself#O and Nthose who heard him confirmed it to us#O neither of which is supported !y the &ree$.H )ost commentators are anxious to assume that Nthe <ordO refers to %esus# and this may !e the case# !ut in what sense; Paul @llin"worth *%e!rews# p.1A7+ compares the phrase Nthrou"h the <ordO with the earlier phrase Nthrou"h an"elsO *verse 2+# ma$in" the point that in !oth cases it is &od doin" the announcin"# throu"h old and new intermediaries. 'his in itself waters down the idea everyone wishes to see in this phrase# namely an allusion to the preachin" of %esus of Nazareth. n any case# this is the lan"ua"e of revelation. 'he idea !ein" expressed is parallel to the main idea stated at the !e"innin" of the epistle# that Nin this final a"e *&od+ has spo$en to us in *or throu"h+ the Son *en huio+.O 0ut the voice of the &ospel %esus is never heard in this epistle6 all the SonPs words come from scripture. 'hus we are entitled to read these passa"es accordin" to the overarchin" philosophy of the period: that &od communicates with the world throu"h his emanations# throu"h a spiritual intermediary6 in certain sectarian circles of %ewish thou"ht# the NSonO %esus# the Christ. 'he entire passa"e in ?e!rews 1:1,1= reveals an era in which scripture was !ein" newly read and interpreted to find references toDand the voice ofDthe Son# a

spiritual entity who for this writer is Nsuperior to the an"elsO *1:=+. As Nthe heir of all thin"s# throu"h whom *&od+ made the universe#O as Nthe efful"ence of &odPs splendor and the stamp of his very !ein"# who sustains the universe !y his word of powerO *1:2,A+# the Son is an expression of the wider philosophical conceptD primarily PlatonicDof an intermediary force who reveals and provides access to &od# an a"ent in the divine scheme of salvation. *See Part 'wo of the )ain Articles.+ 'he announcement of salvation referred to in 2:A,=# was delivered throu"h &odPs Son on a purely spiritual level# derived from scripture. Some experience of revelation# a perception of the intermediary QvoiceP of the Son# came to a "roup in the past *how lon" a"o is difficult to say# !ut some time has elapsed+. 'hose who received this revelation had passed on what they NheardO to the writer and his readers. <i$ely these two parties were within the same community6 perhaps they refer to two "enerations# thou"h this is not clear# nor is the 3uestion of when all the theolo"y contained in the epistle was developed. Berse = spea$s of &od confirmin" the ori"inal revelation !y si"ns and miracles. 'he am!i"uity of the &ree$ ma$es it uncertain whether such si"ns came at the time of revelation# the time of its passin" on *if the two are distinct+# or as a reinforcement of the messa"e as the years went !y. 0ut those who wish to see verse A as a reference to %esusP ministry are left wonderin" why such si"ns from &od would !e appealed to as validatin" the messa"e of salvation# while the writer i"nores %esusP own miracles which accordin" to the &ospels served this very purpose. As well# we could point out that ?e!rews /:12 also refers to the teachin" received at the time of the movementPs inception# !ut rather than this !ein" %esusP own teachin"s# such thin"s are referred to as N&odPs oracles#O a phrase which clearly points to revelation. Nor do the NrudimentsO of faith and ritual which are listed immediately afterward *>:12+ say anythin" of an historical ministry. 'he concludin" phrase of 2:=# N!y distri!utin" the "ifts of the ?oly Spirit#O reinforces the idea inherent in the whole passa"e. 'his is a time and a process of salvation impelled !y the activity of &odPs Spirit# not !y the recent wor$ of the Son on earth spea$in" and actin" in his own person. :hether throu"h visionary experiences or simply an inspired study of scripture# &od is perceived as ma$in" his salvation $nown# and confirmin" it !y certain wonderful happenin"s. 'he conviction of such revelation was the inau"uratin" event of this sectDor at least of its present !eliefs and activities.

The Promise of Eternal $ife

'he so,called Prolo"ue to the first epistle of %ohn points to a similar experience !y the %ohannine community at its inception. ?ere is the N@0Ps version of verses 1 and 2:

t was there from the !e"innin"6 we have heard it# we have seen it with our own eyes6 we loo$ed upon it and felt it with our own hands6 and it is of this we tell. Our theme is the word of life. 2'his life was made visi!le Gmanifested# phanerooH6 we have seen it and !ear our testimony6 we here declare to you the eternal life which dwelt with Gliterally# was withH the (ather and was made visi!le to us. . . . ?ere we have the description of an event of revelation# or perhaps a lon"er process sym!olized as a sin"le event# a moment when certain people !elieved they were receivin" evidence of the offerin" of eternal life. 'hese verses spea$ of that event# that life# in poetic terms# of seein" it# hearin" it# touchin" it. Iespite attempts !y most commentators to ma$e this passa"e a reference to %esusP ministry# the pronouns are neuter# the tone is impersonal# the lan"ua"e that of revelation. As the Prolo"ue now stands# the offerin" of eternal life *in verse A# not 3uoted a!ove+ is said to !e shared Nwith the (ather and his Son# %esus Christ.O 0ut there is some 3uestion as to whether any reference to the Son stood in the initial version of this passa"e. 'he $ey verse 2 tal$s of the eternal life as dwellin" in the (ather *we cannot presume to read this phrase accordin" to later %ohannine understandin"+ with no mention of the Son# and other parts too of this multi,layered epistle focus entirely on &od. t is possi!le that the sect !e"an with a characteristic %ewish focus on &od alone# thou"h with a type of doctrine and outloo$ reminiscent of "roups li$e the @ssenes. *See Supplementary Article No. 2: A Solution to the (irst @pistle of %ohn# for a fuller discussion of the Prolo"ue and these matters.+ 'he entire tenor of 1 %ohn points to a !elief in &odPs actions throu"h the Spirit# and throu"h a Son who is a spiritual intermediary# not a recent historical fi"ure. :hen the idea is !roached in chapter = that N%esus Christ has come in the flesh#O an idea which is denied !y other Christians whom the writer condemns# the confirmation of such a doctrine is the proper Spirit sent from &od# not apostolic witness or traditions "oin" !ac$ to an historical %esus or remem!ered historical events. 'he %ohannine community is one which# li$e the community that produced ?e!rews# owes its formation to perceived revelation from &od. At a post,epistle sta"e# some se"ment of this community came in contact with the Synoptic story of %esus of Nazareth and incorporated it into its !eliefs in a spiritual 9evealer Son# producin" the (ourth &ospel. *See the final section of Supplementary Article No. 2.+

Spotlight on Jerusalem
Neither the %ohannine community nor the one producin" ?e!rews are clearly locata!le in time and place. :e $now of no names associated with either of these sects at the time these documents were written# with the minor exception of three local people who are mentioned in the little third epistle of %ohn. *'he apostle %ohn# of course# is no lon"er considered the writer of these epistles# or of the

(ourth &ospel.+ ?e!rewsP reference to 'imothy toward the end of that epistle *1A:22+ is not re"arded !y all scholars as authentic. 0ut what a!out the "roup concernin" which we do $now names and places# the one that later came to !e loo$ed upon as the fount of the whole Christian movement: the circle in %erusalem around Peter and %ames at the time of Paul; PaulPs references to this "roup of N!rothersO which num!ered over /11 and were en"a"ed in some $ind of apostolic wor$ *1 Corinthians 1/:>,8 and 7:/+ show that it was pro!a!ly a well,$nown and esta!lished !ody in %erusalem itself. 'hey seem to have !een referred to as N!rothers of *or in+ the <ordO *see 1 Corinthians 7:/# Philippians 1:1=+# while %ames himself# apparently the head of the order# seems to have !een $nown as the N!rother of the <ordO *&alatians 1:17# if this is not a later mar"inal "loss to differentiate him from the &ospel %ames# son of Se!edee+. :e do not $now when this sect formed# or for what reason. :e do not $now whether Nthe <ordO mi"ht ori"inally have referred to &od himself. :hat we do $now# if 1 Corinthians is to !e relied upon# is that mem!ers of this "roup underwent experiences of the Christ. 'hese experiences have for almost two millennia !een re"arded as appearances of a resurrected human %esus to his former followers. ?owever# many critical scholars *such as the %esus Seminar+ have come to the conclusion that Paul in 1 Corinthians 1/:/,4 is descri!in" a set of visionary experiences only# convictions on the part of certain people# includin" himself# that they had !een in contact with Christ in his spiritual# exalted state. 0ut with the possi!le exception of PaulPs own vision *thou"h re"ard PaulPs in the same way as well+# these were not QconversionP experiences# since the "roup was already formed. 'hey did not launch the sect. And yet these appearances to Peter# %ames and the others may have played a role of their own in the "enesis of the Christian movement. 'o arrive at what this was# we will loo$ at a different sort of account found in another epistle# 2 Peter.

A Second Century Silence

Scholars date 2 Peter anywhere !etween 41 and 12/ *occasionally even later+# !ut most *e.".# Coester# )ac$# Celly# Side!ottom+ lean to a date one or two decades into the second century. 'he letter cannot !e too early# for the author has lifted out passa"es from the epistle of %ude and wor$ed them into his own piece# and %ude is definitely the earlier writin". Nevertheless# 2 Peter still spea$s of Christ as an entity to Nhave $nowled"e ofO *1:A# 1:4# 2:21# A:14+# implyin" revelation rather than historical memory# and there are nota!le silences which indicate that the writer has no concept of an historical %esus and is unfamiliar with the &ospel story. Amon" these silences is 1:21# where the writer says that Nno one can interpret a prophecy of scripture !y himself.O Fet %esus is represented in the &ospels as showin" how to do this. Another is 2:1# a warnin" that Nyou will have false

teachers amon" you#O which fails to include any mention that %esus himself had prophesied this very thin". A "larin" omission is found in A:11: N0ut the Iay of the <ord will come# li$e a thief.O )atthew and <u$e *from J+ !oth have %esus usin" the identical ima"e# !ut the epistle writer "ives us no hint of this. %. N. I. Celly *Commentary on the Epistles of &eter an# Ju#e# p.A>4+ states: NChrist had ?imself li$ened the comin" of the Son of )an to the surprise !rea$,in of a thief# and the vi"orous ima"e soon fixed itself on the primitive catechesis.O Fet somethin" seems missin" in this Nvi"orousO transfer to early Christian tradition# for neither 2 Peter# nor Paul in 1 'hessalonians /:2# can !rin" themselves to mention that %esus had !een the source of such an ima"e6 !oth also seem i"norant of the term Son of )an. *9evelation# in its two allusions to the thief ima"eDA:A and 1>:1/Ddoes not assi"n it to an earthly %esus in his ministry.+ A very tellin" silence appears in A:2: 9emem!er the predictions made !y &odPs own prophets# and the commands "iven !y the <ord and Savior throu"h your apostles. ?ere the writer seems to lac$ a sense of %esus havin" recently !een on earth# issuin" predictions and commands in his own physical person. nstead of sayin" that the <ord had spo$en these commands durin" his ministry# and the apostles had passed them on# the writer is somewhat am!i"uous# su""estin" that the apostles served as mouthpieces for commands received throu"h revelation or simply throu"h personal 5ud"ment of what the <ord wanted. n fact# the parallel !etween the two phrases in the a!ove verse# the former spea$in" of &od ma$in" $nown his predictions throu"h his prophets# and the <ord and Savior throu"h his apostles# su""ests that !oth &od and Savior are usin" revelatory channels. (inally# we mi"ht note that 2 Peter is a polemical document# primarily concerned with counterin" accusations and contrary opinions from certain scoffers and errorists *e.".# 1:1># A:A,=+. Apparently these N!rute !eastsO are concerned solely with the <ordPs power in the present and future# and nothin" of his incarnated past# for the author of this epistle never addresses any point of dispute concernin" ChristPs life and teachin"s. No word or incident from the preserved memories a!out %esus of Nazareth is offered to counter their o!5ections# no miracle witnessed !y many to answer the accusation that the power of the <ord %esus Christ is !ased merely Non tales artfully spunO *1:1>+. And it is certainly a curiosity that nowhere does this author# who writes in PeterPs name# play his !est trump card !y appealin" to the fact that he *Peter+ had !een a follower of %esus in his earthly ministry and his chief apostle. *?elmut Coester# in his %istory an# 4iterature of Early Christianity# p.27/# refers to 1:1= as Nthe tradition that %esus had predicted PeterPs martyrdom.O 0ut the ver! here is not one of spea$in"# it is #eloo# to reveal# ma$e clear# which places it without much dou!t in the realm of revelation.+

Transfigured on the 1oly ,ountain

0ut there is a $ey passa"e in this epistle which clearly demonstrates the writerPs unfamiliarity with !oth the &ospel story and the fi"ure of an historical %esus. ?ere is 1:1>,17 in full# courtesy of the N@0: *1>+ t was not on tales artfully spun that we relied when we told *gnori#(o+ you of the power of our <ord %esus Christ and his comin" *parousia+6 we saw him with our own eyes *literally# we !ecame eyewitnesses+ in ma5esty# *18+ when at the hands of &od the (ather he was invested with honor and "lory# and there came to him from the su!lime Presence a voice which said: Q'his is my Son# my 0eloved# on whom my favor rests.P *14+ 'his voice from heaven we ourselves heard6 when it came we were with him on the sacred mountain. *17+ All this only confirms for us the messa"e of the prophets# to which you will do well to attend# !ecause it is li$e a lamp shinin" in a mur$y place# until the day !rea$s and the mornin" star rises to illuminate your minds. Commentators have traditionally seen this as a reminiscence of the 'ransfi"uration scene as recorded in the Synoptics: )ar$ 7:2,4# )atthew 18:1,4# <u$e 7:24,A>. 0ut this claim can easily !e discredited. 'he writer represents himself as Peter# one of three apostles who# accordin" to the account first set down in )ar$# witnessed %esusP transfi"uration on a Nhi"h mountainO in &alilee. )ar$ spea$s only of his clothes !ecomin" !ri"ht# while )atthew and <u$e have added a !ri"htness to his face. *'he incident does not appear in %ohn# despite the fact that N%ohnO is one of the three Apostles who witnessed it.+ Iurin" the &ospel event @li5ah and )oses appear# and a voice out of the clouds says: N'his is my Son# my 0eloved6 listen to him.O Now# in 2 Peter# any idea that this scene had ta$en place durin" %esusP earthly ministry has to !e read into thin"s. 'he writer supplies us with no such context. )oreover# no mention is made of the presence of )oses and @li5ah# or of PeterPs su""estion that three ta!ernacles !e set up# or that the voice came out of the clouds# features found in all three Synoptic versions. Nor is any mention made of %esusP clothes or face !ein" illuminated# features which mi"ht !etter identify the fi"ure in the writerPs mind as a human one. All this ma$es it hi"hly unli$ely that he has drawn his $nowled"e of this NincidentO from a &ospel account. :hy is the writer presentin" his readers with what is clearly a revelatory event; 'he reason has to do with the Parousia# mentioned in verse 1>: N. . . we told you of the power and Parousia of our <ord %esus Christ.O 'he word NParousiaO is used in the New 'estament to refer to the future arrival of %esus at the @nd,time. ?ere in 2 Peter translators almost always render it Nhis comin"#O ma$in" it a reference to that future event. 'his would seem to !e !orne out !y a repeat of the word in A:=# where it clearly entails a future expectation:

N:here now is the promise of his comin";O * n 1:1> it could conceiva!ly !e limited to the sense of Npresence#O a reference only to the manifestation of Christ durin" the incident !ein" descri!ed# !ut letPs set that possi!ility aside and "o with the more li$ely interpretation# and the consensus opinion.+ ?ere# then# the author is presentin" this scene as support for his contention that readers can rely on the <ord %esus Christ as a powerful entity# that he is present amon" them# and that the promise will !e fulfilled of Nfull and free admission into the eternal $in"dom of our <ord and Savior %esus ChristO *1:11+# when that <ord arrives at the Parousia. 'he writer holds up this incident# however he sees it# as a prophetic vision of what is to come. 'he first 3uestion which should occur to usDand some scholars have as$ed itDis this: if the writer is see$in" to offer somethin" as NproofO of the power of Christ# somethin" which supports the promise of eternal life for !elievers# why would he choose an incident from %esusP ministry in which his clothes *and possi!ly his face+ were made !ri"ht; @ven the voice from heaven hardly tells us very much or ma$es this the most overwhelmin" of experiences. :hy not offer somethin" far more dramatic# somethin" which Peter himself had supposedly witnessed: %esusP very resurrection from death; After all# this historical act is the presumed !asis for Christian faith in human resurrection. 'he author could even have supplemented this miracle !y enumeratin" the post,resurrection appearances of %esus to his apostles. And if his readers are loo$in" for "uarantees of %esusP future comin"# why not add %esusP own promises that he would return; Celly *op.cit.# p.A21+ ac$nowled"es that Nthere are fascinatin" puzzles here which remain unsolved.O ndeed. Another 3uestion: s all this the lan"ua"e of eyewitness of earthly events; 'he ver! Ngnori#(oO *ma$e $nownDNtoldODin verse 1>+ is a technical term in the New 'estament for impartin" a divine mystery. NEpoptaiO *eyewitnesses+ is also used of the hi"her "rade initiates in the &ree$ mystery cults who had experienced theophanies *the perceived presence of the "od+. 9ather than visual eyewitness# the idea definitely carries a visionary connotation# su""estin"# as Celly puts it *op.cit.# p.A14+# Nprivile"ed admission to a divine revelation.O 'hus# indications are that the writer is recountin" a visionary experience attri!uted to the apostle Peter. ?e $nows of a tradition which says that Peter# while with other apostles *here unspecified+# had seen the spiritual Christ. Note that there is no mention here of any change to %esus6 we do not have a human fi"ure ta$in" on the appearance of a heavenly one# as in the &ospel scene. Berse 1> simply says: Nwe saw him in his ma5esty.O 'his witness was accompanied !y the hearin" of a heavenly voice# which further !estowed Nhonor and "loryO upon that ma5esty. *'he N@0 is misleadin" when it separates the Nhonor and "loryO from the voice# implyin" the &ospel idea of the human fi"ure !ein" transformed. 9ather# the

&ree$ states that it was &odPs words which constituted and conveyed the honor and "lory. )ost translations view it this way# or ta$e it am!i"uously6 the sentence is "rammatically aw$ward# lac$in" a main ver!.+ Berse 14 mi"ht seem to su""est the presence of a human %esus in this scene# !ut even here the am!i"uity tends not to support such an idea. <iterally# the &ree$ says: N'his voice we heard !orne out of heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain.O 'he N!ein" with himO is unli$ely to refer to the &ospel context of the apostles "oin" up to the mountain with %esus# !ecause in that case# it is the whole transfi"uration event that would have ta$en place Nwhile we were with him#O includin" verse 1>Ps appearance in ma5esty. nstead# the writer restricts himself to the voice from heaven# su""estin" that he simply means that this particular manifestation *the voice itself+ occurred Qwhile they were experiencin" his revelatory appearance.P Notice the hi"h scriptural content of this incident. @. ). Side!ottom *James' Ju#e an# 8 &eter# p.117+ points out that the overall atmosphere is similar to Old 'estament theophanies of &od# as thou"h the scene is modeled on scriptural precedents. 'he voice from heaven is !ased on the well,$nown verse of Psalm 2:8 which crops up in the &ospel scene of %esusP !aptism as well as of the 'ransfi"uration. *2 PeterPs wordin"# however# is unli$e the SynopticsP own adaptations# a further indication that the passa"e is not derived from them.+ 'he Nhonor and "loryO spo$en of in verse 18 echoes the words of Psalm 4:/. And the mountain; 2 Peter uses Non the holy mountain#O which is very close to Psalm 2:>: Non Sion his holy mountain.O 'his the Synoptics have watered down to Na hi"h mountain.O Celly# however# has decided *op.cit.# p.A17+ that the &ospelsP Nhi"h mountainO evolved into Nholy mountainO over the course of time# assumin" the &ospel tradition to !e earlier. 0ut 2 PeterPs words are almost certainly there !ecause they appear in the Psalm# and )ar$ may have !een forced to eliminate the NholyO !ecause there was no mountain that could !e called such in &alilee where he set this story. suspect that the tradition a!out a visionary appearance !y the spiritual Christ to Peter has !een QelucidatedP with the help of !i!lical references. :ePll consider what that tradition may have !een in a moment.

$amps in the &ar3ness

'hat this passa"e is not a reminiscence of some event which happened durin" the ministry of an historical %esus is clinched !y what follows. Berse 17 presents us with a !izarre conclusion which the writer draws from this scene. <etPs repeat the verse here: All this only confirms for us the messa"e of the prophets# to which you will do

well to attend# !ecause it is li$e a lamp shinin" in a mur$y place# until the day !rea$s and the mornin" star rises to illuminate your minds. :hat is the writer sayin"; Are we to !elieve that the eyewitnessed "lorification of %esus of Nazareth into his divine persona# the very voice of &od out of heaven ac$nowled"in" him as his Son# serves merely to support scripture; 'hat the entire ministry of the Son of &od on earth is secondary to Old 'estament prophecy; *Celly calls this NparadoxicalO.+ 'he Translator7s New Testament renders the openin" of verse 17 this way: NSo we !elieve all the more firmly in the word of the prophets.O n other words# the writer of 2 Peter is presentin" this scene as corro!oration for the primary source of information a!out %esus and the hope of his comin": the ?e!rew !i!le. t is simply inconceiva!le that he would have so characterized the 'ransfi"uration as presented !y the &ospels. ndeed# it is inconceiva!le that he could have possessed any concept of a recent earthly life of %esus# with all its teachin"s# prophecies# promises# miracles and the con3uest of death itself# yet still focus on the !i!lical writin"s as the Nlamp shinin" in a mur$y place until the day !rea$s.O 'his would ma$e scripture the primary testimony# the primary !asis# on which Christian hopes for the future rested. Celly# in his strained attempt to explain the anomaly of verse 17# passes over this astoundin" focus on scripture rather than on ChristPs recent life as the lamp for Christians waitin" in the dar$ for salvation. So does A. C. 9. <eaney *The 4etters of &eter an# Ju#e# p.11=+# who notes instead that# Ncuriously enou"h#O verse 17 really says that scriptural testimony to %esus is Nmore certainO than the voice of &od at the 'ransfi"urationD!ut only !ecause the prophets spent more words on it and thus made it clearerM f# on the other hand# the scene the writer is recountin" is a tradition a!out PeterPs vision of a Christ who has not yet arrived on earth# then the wei"ht he "ives to this experience is exactly ri"ht. nterpretation of the word of &od in the sacred writin"s has !een "iven support !y a report a!out another form of communication from heaven: a vision of the "lory of the Son and the voice of &od himself identifyin" and ac$nowled"in" him. 'his vision is ta$en as a promise of his comin"# supportin" a promise made in scripture. t is ironic that the writer !e"an his scene with this disclaimer: these are not Nfa!lesO or Ntales artfully spunO which he offers# implyin" that his opponents have la!eled them this way. f the writer faced such accusations# surely the most natural re!uttal would have !een a spirited presentation of the thin"s %esus had said and done durin" his ministry on earth. nstead# he mana"es to avoid any clear reference at all to an historical %esus of Nazareth. Celly# ever resourceful at discernin" li"ht where none shines# declares nevertheless *p.A1>+ that NPeter#O in re!uttin" accusations that his claims are contrived mytholo"y# has "iven his opponents Nthe

apostolic version of Christianity# with its secure !asis in history.O

E*ol*ing Interpretations
2 Peter clearly re"ards the appearance of Christ in his "lory as a forecast of the Parousia. And Celly allows *p.A18+ that there is some evidence in early Christian thou"ht that the 'ransfi"uration was an anticipation of the Second Comin". 0ut this is not how the &ospels themselves view it. nstead# )ar$ 7:7 shows %esus lin$in" it with his comin" resurrection# when he would rise in "lory. *'he fact that the apostles fail to understand %esusP reference to his risin" from the dead shows that the evan"elist is Qeditorializin"P and that for him the important lin$ is with the resurrection.+ f 2 Peter points to an earlier stratum *it would have to !e earlier# since the interpretation found in the &ospels and the force of their resurrection story would hardly !e lost si"ht of or a!andoned+# it is almost a necessary conclusion that this earlier line of thou"ht was not only unfamiliar with the &ospels# !ut that it $new of no resurrection intervenin" !etween the Ntransfi"urationO episode recounted in 2 Peter and the future Parousia. 'hat resurrection# of a human %esus in historical time# came only with the &ospels# when the tradition a!out an event witnessed !y Peter and others was reinterpreted to point to %esusP "lorification at the time of his risin" from the tom!. * t does not matter that 2 Peter was almost certainly written after the &ospel of )ar$. 'he latter was not yet $nown to the author of the epistle# who was drawin" on older traditions6 and this would support the contention that the &ospels were not widely disseminated for some time after they were written.+ Possi!ly )ar$ himself conscripted the Qtransfi"urationP tradition into his story and placed it in %esusP ministry# where it served to provide a foretaste of %esusP resurrection. :e must remem!er that )ar$ had no post,resurrection appearances to draw onDand unli$e his redactors did not invent anyDso this scene would have served him as a prophetic su!stitute *thou"h he was li$ely writin" sym!olic midrash# not perceived history+. ts old si"nificance as a forecast of the Parousia was a!andoned.

2oots of the Christian ,o*ement

All of this opens up some fascinatin" possi!ilities. Ioes the tradition recounted in 2 Peter "o !ac$ to an actual experience of the apostle Peter who is $nown to us from the letters of Paul; t is impossi!le to !e sure# !ut there is no reason why this could not !e the case# even if that tradition was su!se3uently conflated with Qelucidatin"P scriptural material. And if such a tradition shows no $nowled"e or trace of a resurrection event# we are left with this picture of the early Christian movement in %erusalem: not a community which reacted to the perceived risin" of an earthly %esus they had $nown and followed# !ut one which had come to !elieve in the imminent arrival of the spiritual Christ at the @nd time# prompted !y a

vision *or more li$ely a series of them+ of the sort which later "ave rise to the episode recounted in 2 Peter. 'he next 3uestion is o!vious. Io we in fact have an earlier record of that very vision or series of visions of the spiritual Christ; s it to !e found in PaulPs list in 1 Corinthians 1/ of those various individuals and "roups# includin" Peter# who NsawO the Christ# in the sense of receivin" a revelation of him# an experience of his presenceDwhich many of todayPs critical scholars now a"ree is PaulPs meanin"; f so# our analysis of the 2 Peter episode will support that a"reement and point to the "reater si"nificance of those experiences in %erusalem. (or we may well postulate that# for this sectarian "roup# it was these visions of the divine Christ which resulted in the conviction that he was soon to arrive in "lory to esta!lish the Cin"dom. t may even !e that these visions were the NeventO which "ave rise to the charismatic missionary movement proceedin" out of %erusalem to preach the Christ and his imminent comin"# one which the hostile Saul soon 5oined as Paul. 'hus PaulPs account in 1 Corinthians 1/:/,4 may !e re"arded as pointin" to the inau"uration of the NPetrine,PaulineO !ranch of the Christian faith# at least in its active phase. Accordin"ly# we can place these verses in a $ind of parallel to the passa"es we loo$ed at earlier# in ?e!rews and 1 %ohn# as a record of events which "ave rise to a new sectarian "roup or activity within the widespread salvation movement which eventually !ecame $nown as Christianity. 'he episode which survives in 2 Peter 1:1>,14# no dou!t N"lorifiedO in the interim *there is no necessity to thin$ that Peter had his vision on a holy mountain# or heard the voice of &od from heaven spea$in" a verse from the Psalm+# "ives us a window onto that momentous happenin"# addin" some le"endary li"ht to PaulPs !are recital. n all of the passa"es we have loo$ed at# tantalizin" 3uestions remain. Ender what circumstances did these revelatory occurrences ta$e place# and were they responsi!le for the actual formation of the sectarian "roup; Or# when one thin$s a!out it# must some form of or"anization have existed already# possi!ly of recent vinta"e# within whose volatile and expectant atmosphere the awaited manifestation from &od or <ord inevita!ly too$ place; PaulPs "ospel N*ata tas graphasO *1 Corinthians 1/:A,=+ su""ests the presence and impact of scriptural study amon" such "roups *as does the entire tenor of the @pistle to the ?e!rews+# and such intense perusal of the sacred writin"s may well have tri""ered the perceived NrevelationsO all these epistles spea$ of. :hat mi"ht have !een the content of those revelations; :ere they simply a confirmation that the spiritual Christ did indeed exist; Or did they include certain information a!out his nature and redeemin" activities; Paul# as well as those who came after him# spo$e re"ularly a!out the revelation of the mystery of &od# the secret of Christ disclosed in the present time. t may !e that ideas a!out such

thin"s as Paul includes in his "ospel had !een derived from a study of scripture and were then seen to !e "iven confirmation !y visions li$e those en5oyed !y Peter and company. Such study may have !een the reason for the formation of the "roup to !e"in with. :as this the foundin" purpose of the N!rothers in the <ordO under %ames# sometime around the 3uarter mar$ of the first century in %erusalem; :ere they en"a"ed in any proselytizin" activity at the time of those visions# or was such activity lar"ely the result of them; Perhaps the revelation was restricted to the fact that Christ was a!out to come and inau"urate the Cin"dom# promptin" an apostolic movement of which Paul !ecame a part. :e have no idea how lon" the %erusalem "roup had !een operatin". ?ad it formed specifically to explore contemporary reli"ious ideas a!out an expected )essiah; Or was it an exploration of the new divine Son: what he had done in his spiritual past and what he would do in the future; Perhaps the latter ideas were a product of the "roupPs study# no dou!t influenced !y developin" trends of thou"ht in the world around them. Perhaps it had !e"un as a more mainstream "roupDwith the N<ordO referrin" not to Christ !ut to &odDonly to find itself swept up in the !ur"eonin" new currents of the day. ?ow sectarian was it# and did it have stron" apocalyptic expectations from the start; Or did these arise in earnest only followin" those experiences of the spiritual )essiah and the promise of his comin"; :e are almost totally in the dar$ a!out the "roupPs specific !eliefs and practices# except for what little emer"es in Paul# and that mostly !y inference. Acts purports to tell us much# !ut this document is a second century concoction# entirely at the service of the new myth of an historical %esus and a unified ori"in for the Christian movement. :hile certain elements in Acts have a primitive character which may point to traditions reachin" !ac$ to early times# no actual sources have !een uncovered for anythin" it presents# and everythin" would have !een recast to fit the new plot line of Christian history. (or a $ey 3uestion remains: how much of what Paul was preachin" "oes !ac$ to the %erusalem "roup and how much was a product of his own post,conversion development; Certainly Paul claims no derivation whatsoever from others# even thou"h he ac$nowled"es that they hold common elements *as in 1 Corinthians 1/:11+. 0ut we must $eep in mind that almost everythin" Paul tells us# or implies# a!out the "roup around Peter and %ames relates to the period when he !e"an to write letters# that is# to the time of the so,called Apostolic Conference around the year =7. t is virtually impossi!le to tell if the doctrines which the "roup in %erusalem !elieved at that time went !ac$ to the period of the initial visions and the sectPs formation# perhaps some two decades earlier. nterim developments# amon" them perhaps PaulPs own innovations# may have contri!uted to an

evolution in whatever view of the divine Son of &od Peter and the others held. All these 3uestions will never have firm answers. :e are in the area of speculation. 0ut we can add one more point here. Iid the visions which ended up in scenes li$e that of 2 Peter have a direct influence on the creation of %esus of Nazareth; 0y the late first century# many factors were conver"in" to initiate the evolution of the spiritual Christ into an historical %esus# and some of these tendencies may have !een independent of the &ospels. f we can impute to the evan"elists any sense that the fi"ure they were portrayin" had any !asis in history *which the evolution of J mi"ht su""est+# a ma5or factor which led to placin" him in the time of ?erod and Pontius Pilate may have !een these visions. :hile it mi"ht have seemed natural to place %esus in the "eneration of the earliest $nown apostles# the tradition that Peter# %ames and others had NseenO him in his exalted state could have contri!uted to the idea that such apostles had in fact !een disciples of an earthly %esus# and that they had witnessed a transfi"uration of the human man6 later# such visions !ecame appearances he had made to them after his resurrection. Paul himself had spo$en of seein" the Nrisen Christ.O :hat was lost si"ht of was the fact that Paul had not meant the recently risen %esus of Nazareth# !ut a divine Christ who in the mythical realm had !een $illed *!y supernatural powers: 1 Corinthians 2:46 see Supplementary Article No. A# :ho Crucified %esus;+# raised and exalted !y &od# all of this !ein" the "reat mystery which &od# throu"h scripture and the Spirit# had revealed to those earliest apostles. s two to three "enerations enou"h lapse of time to allow for such a monumental misunderstandin" of the past to ta$e place; n an era of war and upheaval durin" which much of Palestine was laid waste# in a society which *compared to our own+ possessed primitive communication# record,$eepin"# scientific enli"htenment and s$ills of critical thin$in"# in an atmosphere of reli"ious fanaticism fuelled !y fevered sectarian expectations of mythic proportion# that 3uestion scarcely needs to !e as$ed.

Supplementary Article No. 4

CHRIST AS .AN!
Doe& Pa2, Spea3 of Je&2& a& a Hi&to%ica, Pe%&o 4 55 I 55
:hile scholars are the first to admit that Paul is woefully silent on 5ust a!out everythin" the &ospels tells us a!out %esus of Nazareth# they are 3uic$ to point to a handful of passa"es in his letters which seem to indicate that he has an historical

fi"ure in mind. (or all the tal$ in the New 'estament epistles of Christ %esus as a transcendent deity# of scripture and the Spirit as the channel of $nowled"e a!out him# or the constant reference to &od as the source of Christian ethics and the Christian "ospel# most scholars continue to fall !ac$ on a limited num!er of phrases a!out ChristPs nature as Nman#O his NfleshO and N!lood#O words implyin" !irth# or his Ncomin" into the world.O Such thin"s they ta$e as proof that all these writers# even if seemin"ly indifferent to the &ospel story# nevertheless $now that the human man existed and had recently wal$ed the earth. 0ut do they; s there another way of readin" such passa"es; f the Christ of the epistles is in other respects a revealed entity# a mystery or NsecretO newly disclosed !y &od who seems to operate in an entirely spiritual dimension with mytholo"ical characteristics# can we loo$ for an interpretation of these NhumanO soundin" features which fits into such a context;

1igher and $o%er Worlds

:e have to start !y realizin" that the modern mind has lon" a!andoned those views of the universe which for the ancients "overned their !eliefs in "ods and salvation. 'he concepts of the first century C@ have little resonance with the scientific $nowled"e of the 21th and 21st centuries. :hen the eye of the ancient philosopher or even the avera"e layperson loo$ed s$yward# it ima"ined it could see a populated spirit world where the !ul$ of the wor$in"s of the universe too$ place. Near the !ottom of this multi,level system lay humanityPs sphere of material existence6 only Sheol or ?ades# the underworld# was lower. Barious supernatural layers *usually seven+ extended upwards# filled with spiritual life forms# reachin" to the hi"hest heaven of pure spirit where the ultimate &od dwelled in timeless perfection. )ost important# the nature of this reality involved far,reachin" correspondences !etween the hi"her and lower realms# !etween spirit and matter. @ven !efore Plato# near eastern mytholo"y envisioned primal or archetypal forms existin" in heaven# of which earthly thin"s were counterparts. 0ut it was Plato who inserted into the intellectual consciousness of the ancient world the concept that the upper realm of spirit contained the primary manifestations of thin"s# in perfect and eternal forms# and that the lower material world contained only transient# imperfect copies of them. Platonism eventually envisioned a Qchain of "enerationP from the mind of &od# throu"h emanative spirit prototypes and models# down to earthly end,products in matter. 'hese concepts !ecame expanded in various ways# showin" a ran"e of expression in &ree$ philosophy as well as in %ewish and other near,eastern thou"ht. A sacred site such as the %erusalem 'emple# for example *as in ?e!rews 4 and 7# :isdom of Solomon 7:4# etc.+# was the earthly counterpart of a "reater# more perfect heavenly 'emple. *@ven the 0a!ylonians had held such an idea.+ Nations# rulers# "roups on earth possessed a correspondin" an"elic or divine !ein" who represented them# a

superior counterpart in heaven# a champion. @vil nations possessed evil an"els. 'his counterpart em!odied the 3ualities which they claimed for themselves# or loo$ed forward to achievin" when the time of salvation arrived *such as in the Similitudes of @noch: see !elow.+ @vents expected to ta$e place on earth had already !een wor$ed out in some fashion in archetypal processes in the heavenly realm# or in the mind of &od6 fi"ures to !e revealed in the future already existed and were preparin" themselves in heaven. And so on. Paul and the earliest Christians thus lived at a time when the world of matter was viewed as only one dimension of reality# the o!serva!le half of a lar"er# inte"rated whole# whose otherDinvisi!leDhalf was re"arded as the N"enuineO reality# accessi!le to the intellect. t was characteristic of mytholo"ical thin$in" that the heavenly counterpart was more real and permanent than the earthly one# and prior to it in order of !ein". *See %ohn %. Collins# The Apocalyptic +magination# p.1/1.+ Such an outloo$ must !e ta$en into account in all interpretations of the earliest Christian writin"s. *Note that some of the ideas dealt with here have !een presented in previous articles# nota!ly in Part 'wo of the )ain Articles and in Supplementary Article No. A: :ho Crucified %esus;+

The World of ,yth

:hen a culture lives with the dominant sense that the world it inha!its is an outpost or antecham!er of a more important world# a visi!le dimension !eside or !elow a vast invisi!le dimension# it must create a relationship as well as lin$s !etween the two. )yth is really 5ust a pictorial presentation of the thin"s "oin" on in the unseen dimension and how they interact with the one humans live in. Iiscussin" myth in the ancient world is hampered !y the fact that there was no uniform way of re"ardin" it# since this was a multi,cultural milieu and many ancient streams fed into its collective thin$in". 'o complicate the picture# we have philosophical schools applyin" themselves to theories a!out the wor$in"s of the spiritual universe# and this influenced the way reli"ious movements formulated their sacred stories. ChristianityPs myths were shaped !y the whole ran"e of mytholo"ical thin$in" of the era# some of it with roots "oin" !ac$ into prehistoric times. :e cannot expect to find a uniformity# or even a consistency# in many of its ideas. )yths represent the other end of the channel flowin" !etween the spiritual world and the human one# !y which the latter is sustained and vitalized# "iven meanin" and purpose. 0efore Platonism# myths were "enerally set in a dim# distant past. 'his was the approach *and lar"ely still is+ of all pre,scientific societies around the world. And althou"h !y the period of early Christianity mythical thin$in" tended to !e recast alon" more Platonic lines# this lon" tradition of primordial myth continued to flow as an undercurrent.

Anthropolo"ists of reli"ion li$e )ircea @liade *see 0i!lio"raphy at end+ call this distant time of myth the Nsacred past.O 'his was a primordial time at the !e"innin" of thin"s when supernatural !ein"s created the world and first performed acts and esta!lished institutions which set the patterns of !ehavior and !elief that present society follows. Primordial time has set the paradi"m# the model6 present society em!odies its copy# its repetition. ?uman !ein"s have always needed to 5ustify their !eliefs and practices# even their sufferin"s# to invest them with "reater,than,human si"nificance# !y anchorin" them in some divine precedent# in a time and settin" which !estows on them a venera!le authority. On a personal level# we have here the fundamental appeal of reli"ion: throu"h myth the individual is invested with si"nificance6 he or she is rendered sacred !y ac$nowled"in" a divine# primordial ancestry and enterin" into a new state of !ein"Da re!irth into union with the supernatural paradi"m. A suita!le past# therefore# has to !e created. And so do lin$s with that past. 'his is the purpose of rituals and sacraments# the essential companion pieces to myth. 0y performin" a rite which Nre,createsO the primordial event# society $eeps it alive# ma$es it recur for itself. 'he vitality and !enefits which the divine act had ori"inally "enerated are re"enerated in the present# and those participatin" in the rite can draw on that re"enerated power. Primordial time# in the lan"ua"e of the anthropolo"ists# is made into an Neternal now#O always accessi!le and repeata!le. A simple example is the Christian sacrament of the @ucharist. 0y sta"in" the rite in the cele!ration of the )ass# the priest draws Christ into the present proceedin"s# em!odied in the priestPs reenactment of ChristPs ori"inal act. 'hat act is $ept alive# its !enefits continually availa!le to the devotees. Ancient views of myth had# !y the first century# !een dramatically affected !y Platonic philosophy. @ven thou"h processes continued to operate in a similar fashion# the time and place of mythical happenin"s had lar"ely !een shifted from the distant primordial past to a hi"her world of spiritual realities. *:hether the avera"e devotee of the mystery cults adopted the Platonic outloo$ or still re"arded the myths as inha!itin" a prehistoric past is impossi!le to say# as we have no survivin" record of the views of the common people in these matters. 0ut all the expressions we do have# indicate a hi"her,lower world mentality.+ nstead of loo$in" !ac$ to archaic !e"innin"s# reli"ious ritual could reach into that parallel# upper dimension and find its paradi"ms# its spiritual forces# ri"ht there. n this hi"her world# the myths of the savior "ods and of earliest Christianity had ta$en place. ?ere Attis was castrated# here )ithras had slain the !ull# here Osiris had !een dismem!ered. (or more sophisticated thin$ers li$e Plutarch and the =th century Sallustius# such mythical stories were not literal# !ut merely sym!olic of timeless spiritual processes which the human mind had difficulty "raspin". See# for example# PlutarchPs +sis an# "siris# chapter 11. n this upper world# too# Christ had !een crucified at the hands of the demon spirits

*1 Corinthians 2:4# Ascension of saiah 76 see Supplementary Article No. A+. (or Paul and his contemporaries# such thin"s as Christ underwent and the availa!le !enefits which flowed from them# are &odPs secrets. 'hey are the NmysteriesO of this hi"her sphere# ta$in" place N!efore or !eyond timeO *the pro chron9n ai9ni9n of 2 'imothy 1:76 see Part 'wo+. Such mysteries have now !een revealed !y &od# throu"h scripture and the Spirit. (or the writer of ?e!rews# the sacrificial acts of %esus the ?i"h Priest have ta$en place in a heavenly sanctuary# a hi"her world of a Platonic type. *'he next Supplementary Article will !e devoted to the @pistle to the ?e!rews# focusin" on its Platonic character.+ Note that# unli$e most of the pa"an cults whose mythical stories a!out their "ods went !ac$ to a time when they were envisioned as havin" ta$en place on earth in a primordial past# Christianity in its earliest phase *as in the epistles+ had no -mytholo"y- a!out a Christ %esus that involved similar earthly soundin" events. 'here was little or no %esus .story#. not even relatin" to his death and resurrection. 'he epistle writers "ive us no -!io"raphical- details pertainin" to these acts of salvation. 'his void illustrates the recent vinta"e of the Christ cult# when Platonism was the dominant way of perceivin" these thin"s# and Christ was re"arded as operatin" in a spiritual realm# not a primordial historical one. 'he -material- characteristics he is "iven# such as the -li$eness- of flesh and !lood# and aspects li$e a relationship to Iavid# are not only derived from scripture# they fit into the Platonic scheme of thin"s# as we shall see later in this article. 0ut even within its !asic Platonic nature# Christian myth was further 3ualified and affected !y its %ewish herita"e. :hatever the primitive ?e!rew view of a Nsacred pastO may have !een in its earlier sta"es# it eventually moved into a more concrete settin". Primordial fi"ures and processes were transferred to an archaic history# em!odied in le"ends of human patriarchs who had en5oyed special contacts with the Ieity. All of it !ecame firmly anchored in an historical past which could !e chronicled year !y year. Neither A!raham nor )osesDwho may or may not *thou"h pro!a!ly not+ !e !ased on actual historical fi"uresDwere located in a true sacred past or hi"her reality. 'he promises &od made to them# the precedents they set# such as the practice of circumcision# were pinpointed in historical time. 'his herita"e fed into Christian myth and 3ualified the type of thin$in" Christianity had ta$en from the conceptual world of the &ree$s. 'hus where the &ree$ myths were essentially timeless# unrelated to a chronicled past# PaulPs myth of Christ had to !e QlocatedP to some extent in an historical se3uence. t had features which were derived from scripture# a scripture which presented an on"oin" system of salvation history. 'he redemptive actions of the mythical Christ in the spiritual world had to !e Qfitted intoP this on"oin" pattern. (or example# Christ had to !e Nof IavidPs stoc$O *9omans 1:A+# for the spiritual Christ was now e3uated with the )essiah# and the clear testimony in scripture that the )essiah would !e a descendant of Iavid could neither !e i"nored nor

a!andoned. ?e thus# in some way# was viewed as possessin" a Iavidic nature. *'his also fitted the Platonic view of hi"her,lower world counterparts# all thin"s in the lower world of humans havin" a more primary e3uivalent in the upper world.+ As an expression of a new covenant# Christ had also operated under the old law with the purpose of a!ro"atin" it. 'he QhistoricityP and human characteristics of scripture ru!!ed off on the picture of Christ presented !y early Christian writers# such as declarin" him N!orn of womanO in &alatians =:=# under the influence of saiah 8:1=. *All this made the evolution of the spiritual Christ into an historical fi"ure much easier.+ n a moment we will examine in "reater detail these and similar $ey passa"es in the epistles.

2ites4 Sacraments and Paradigms

%ust as today we perceive natural laws and forces wor$in" in nature and the universe# the ancients perceived spiritual forces operatin" !etween the natural world and the supernatural# !etween the present# earthly reality and the primordial past or hi"her divine reality. (or Paul# the rite of !aptism was a true sacrament# somethin" which drew on invisi!le spiritual forces operatin" !etween past and present# !etween heaven and earth. 0aptism lin$ed the Christian initiates with Christ in the spiritual realm. t made them part of a collective# mystical !ody: Christ the head# !elievers the lim!s and or"ans *e.".# 1 Corinthians >:1/+. t also lin$ed them with ChristPs mythical act of death and resurrection# conferrin" a new !irth upon them *as in 9omans >:1,11+. Paul calls this effect Ndyin" and risin" to Christ.O Irawin" on the spiritual forces "enerated !y ChristPs redemptive act# the !eliever dies to his or her old life in sin and rises to a new one free of sin6 and he or she inherits the promise of future resurrection. Such sacramental thin$in" was not derived from %udaism# !ut from ?ellenistic reli"ious thou"ht# as expressed in the mysteries. *See# for example# (. :. 0eare# The First Epistle of &eter# p./8.+ n descri!in" the relationship !etween the upper and lower worlds# scholars *e.". Collins# op.cit.# p.1/1+ spea$ of a Nparallelism of actionO !etween heavenly and earthly counterparts# a Nstructural homolo"ueO *&. 'heissen# .ociology of Early &alestinian Christianity# p.121+. Actions !y divine !ein"s in the spiritual realm have their conse3uences for those on earth who are 5oined to them. 'his idea is the $ey to understandin" the concept of salvation which early Christianity shared with the &ree$ cults. 'he a!sorption of the spiritual power "enerated !y the deity and his acts is accomplished throu"h a pattern of Nli$eness.O ?ere is the way Paul puts it in 9omans >:/: N(or if we have !ecome united with him in the li$eness of his death# certainly we shall !e also in the li$eness of his resurrection.O *NAS0 translation+ n other words# the spiritual force set up !y the acts of the deity in the primordial past or hi"her reality impacts on the devotee in the present in a parallel way. Ieath

creates a Ndeath#O resurrection creates a Nresurrection.O :hether in the primordial or hi"her world settin"# the spiritual model sets the pattern for the earthly copies. ChristPs act of resurrection "uarantees the resurrection of the convert who under"oes the !aptismal rite6 the rite is the means of harnessin" that availa!le spiritual force and ma$in" it flow to the !eliever. t all fits into that most fundamental of ancient concepts outlined earlier: that earth was the mirror ima"e of heaven# the product proceedin" from the archetype# the visi!le material counterpart to the "enuine spiritual reality a!ove. ?eavenly events determined earthly realities. t follows that in such a philosophical system# the determinin" acts of divine forces which conferred salvation would of necessity !e located# not on earth# !ut in that hi"her realm. @verythin" Paul says places him in that sort of thou"ht world.

The Paradigm in 1ea*en

'he concept of a paradi"m in heaven who determines the fate of his counterparts on earth can !e illustrated !y a couple of examples from %ewish apocalyptic. n the 8th chapter of the 0oo$ of Ianiel# we are introduced in a vision to the None li$e a son of man#O a heavenly fi"ure who is !rou"ht !efore the throne of &od followin" the overthrow of the last of earthPs "reat empires. 'his fi"ure receives power and dominion from &od# an act which si"nifies *so an an"el informs Ianiel+ that the ri"hteous elect of srael# the NSaints of the )ost ?i"h#O shall receive such a soverei"nty over the earth. Some scholars re"ard this None li$e a son of manO as an an"el# others simply as a poetic ima"e of the saints he represents. Still others su""est he is an actual divine fi"ure who serves as a heavenly representative for the saints on earth. ?ere the issue need not !e resolved. :hatever the writer had in mind# IanielPs fi"ure can serve as an example of the paradi"m who under"oes an experience in heaven which "uarantees a correspondin" experience on earth !y his human counterpart. *Ianiel-s .son of man. was !y the middle of the first century C@ to evolve# in some %ewish and related circles# into a definite divine fi"ure# expected from heaven as an apocalyptic 5ud"e. ?e appears in %ewish apocalyptic documents# !ut also in the &alilean Cin"dom movement represented !y J# proceedin" from there into the &ospels.+ n the Similitudes of @noch *chapters A8 to 81 of 1 @noch# pro!a!ly written in the mid first century !y a %ewish sect+ the fi"ure called the @lect One or 9i"hteous OneDalso Son of )an and )essiahDis revealed to !e waitin" in heaven. Soon he shall appear on earth to render 5ud"ment# he will raise the oppressed and overthrow the wic$ed rulers and those who re5ect the )ost ?i"h *&od+. ?e is the champion of a "roup on earth# the sufferin" ri"hteous and elect. n the @lect One dwells those 3ualities# holiness and ri"hteousness# shared !y his earthly counterparts. 'hey await the chan"es he will !rin"# includin" their own "lorification and reception of eternal life. 'his 9i"hteous One *a Qspiritual

)essiahP idea amon" %ewsM+ is not a sacrificial fi"ure# however6 the @nochian sect had not evolved in this direction. 0ut whoever wrote the christolo"ical hymn 3uoted !y Paul in his letter to the Philippians *2:>,11+ has done 5ust that. ?ere we have a divine !ein" who Nshared in &odPs very nature#O who hum!led himself and in o!edience accepted death. As a conse3uence# N&od raised him to the hei"hts#O where he received the homa"e of all powers and !ein"s on earth and in heaven. 'he implication is that this self, sacrificin" divinity *who operates in the celestial spheres# not on earth: see Supplementary Article No. A+ is a paradi"m for !elievers on earth# who will similarly !e exalted as a conse3uence of their own o!edience and death. As )orna ?oo$er puts it *see 0i!lio"raphy+: NChrist !ecomes what we are *li$eness of flesh# sufferin" and death+# so ena!lin" us to !ecome what he is *exalted to the hei"hts+O.

55 II 55
:e can now "o on to consider how writers li$e Paul descri!e their paradi"matic Christ and whether such terminolo"y as they use can !e fitted into the contemporary picture of a multi,level# homolo"ic universe.

The (ospel A)out the Son

At the very !e"innin" of the collection of New 'estament epistles# in the openin" verses of 9omans# lies a statement which many declare re3uires us to "o no further. @ven if Paul were never to !reathe a su!se3uent word a!out %esus of Nazareth# they say# in verse A lies somethin" which unmista$a!ly points to the concept of an historical man lyin" in the !ac$"round of PaulPs thou"ht a!out the Christ. And yet# the situation is 3uite the opposite. 'his illuminatin" statement has stood at the head of the Pauline corpus for almost two millennia# and should lon" a"o have revealed !oth the true !e"innin"s of Christianity and the role scripture played in them# as well as the a!sence of any historical %esus in PaulPs mind. All it needs is the application of common sense to the words Paul has written. <etPs see if we can do 5ust that. Paul# a servant of %esus Christ# called to !e an apostle# set apart for the "ospel of &od# which he promised *or# announced+ !eforehand throu"h his prophets in the holy scriptures# the "ospel concernin" his Son# who . . . And he "oes on to itemize two elements of that "ospel a!out the Son# which wePll loo$ at in a moment. 0ut first# letPs ta$e a sideways "lance at another statement in Paul# in 9omans 1>:2/,> *possi!ly inserted !y a pseudo,Pauline writer+# which clearly defines the source of PaulPs "ospel: N. . . accordin" to the revelation of the mystery $ept in silence for lon" a"es !ut now revealed# and made $nown throu"h prophetic writin"s at the command of &od . . .O 'his and several other passa"es in

the Pauline corpus identify scripture and revelation throu"h the Spirit as the source of PaulPs *and of those who came after him+ information a!out the Christ# and we can $eep this in mind as we loo$ closely at 9omans 1:1,=. Consider what Paul is sayin" in these verses and as$ yourself: s there somethin" wron" with this picture; 'he "ospel is &odPs# received throu"h revelation. Not from other men# not from %esus himself throu"h channels of apostolic transmission. 'here seems to !e no si"n of a role for an historical %esus here in formulatin" the "ospel. &od had promised this "ospel !eforehand# or announced it: !oth are valid translations of the &ree$ proepangel9. *'he root of the ver! is the same as the word for Nan"el#O &odPs NannouncerO and messen"er.+ 'his "ospel had !een announced in scripture# in the holy writin"s of the prophets. 'his is where Paul has "otten his "ospel a!out the Son. t was all there ahead of time# encoded !y &od into the writin"s# awaitin" PaulPs discovery. &od in scripture had loo$ed aheadD not to Jesus' !ut to the gospel that tol# of him. ?ow could Paul have presented thin"s in this !izarre way; ?e is tellin" the 9oman Christians that scripture contains the forecast of his own "ospel# not the forecast of %esus and his life. 0ut if &od had encoded in scripture information a!out %esus that would form part of PaulPs "ospel# then &od would have !een first and foremost foretellin" %esus. Any sane mind would have made the simple ad5ustment and said that &od had announced information !eforehand a!out Jesus. Not a!out PaulPs "ospel. As Paul presents it# scripture was not the prophecy of %esusP life and activities. t was the prophecy of the "ospel which told of those activities. 'his means that no life of %esus intervened !etween the writin" of scripture and the revelation of the "ospel to Paul. :herever or whenever the activities of the Son had ta$en place# it had not !een located in history !etween the two events. 'his is perfectly consistent with the manner of presentation we can see throu"hout the New 'estament epistles# especially in connection with the revelation of &odPs Nmystery.O 'he secret of Christ has !een hidden for lon" a"es# and the first !rin"in" to li"ht of that secret# the first action on &odPs a"e,old promises# has ta$en place not in a life of %esus in the recent past# !ut in the inspirations and activities of missionary prophets li$e Paul. :e are forced to conclude that in PaulPs past# there was no historical %esus. 9ather# the activities of the Son a!out which &odPs "ospel in scripture told# as interpreted !y Paul# had ta$en place in the spiritual realm and were accessi!le only throu"h revelation.

The Seed of &a*id

0ut letPs "o on. n 9omans 1:A,=# Paul "ives us two items of this "ospel a!out the Son# encoded !y &od into scripture: . . . who arose from the seed of Iavid accordin" to the flesh# and was desi"nated Son of &od in power accordin" to the spirit of holiness Gor# the holy spiritH after his resurrection from the dead. 'his part of the sentence is frustratin"ly cryptic# as reflected !y the many different translations of its various elements. *'he a!ove translation of verses 1 to = are partly my own# in an attempt to lean toward the literal &ree$.+ ?ere# Paul offers two elements a!out the Son. One is *ata sar*a# literally Naccordin" to the flesh#O a va"ue and particularly cryptic phrase that is used throu"hout early Christian literature in a variety of su!tle ways# often with unclear meanin". 'he other is *ata pneuma# literally Naccordin" to the spirit.O :hether the latter is a reference to the ?oly Spirit is also uncertain. Perhaps Paul is usin" *ata to refer to somethin" li$e Nin the sphere of the fleshO and Nin the sphere of the spirit#O which is a su""estion put forward !y the eminent scholar C. C. 0arrett. Such a translation is# in fact# 3uite useful and possi!ly accurate. 0ut letPs loo$ at *ata sar*a first. . . . who arose from the seed of Iavid# accordin" to the flesh Gor# in the sphere of the fleshH . . . s this a piece of historical datum; f it is# itPs the only one Paul ever "ives us# for no other feature of %esusP human incarnation appears in his letters. 0ut the fact that it is lin$ed with the second element# which is an entirely spiritual event derived from scripture# su""ests that it is not a !io"raphical element Paul is offerin". n fact# it follows# "rammatically and conceptually# out of what Paul has 5ust said: it is an element of the "ospel a!out &odPs Son which has !een pre,announced in scripture. Paul has told us clearly and une3uivocally that this is where he has "otten this piece of information. n verses 1,2# Paul has focused on the messa"e to !e found in the sacred writin"s. :hy would he suddenly step outside that focus and stic$ in a !io"raphical datum a!out %esus of Nazareth derived from historical $nowled"eDthen return to scripture *as we shall see+ for his second element; n fact# scripture was full of predictions that the Christ# the )essiah# would !e descended from Iavid. Paul# in readin" these# would have applied them to his particular version of the Son# the Son who was a spiritual entity# not a human one. :as it possi!le for the divine Son who operated entirely in the spiritual realm to !e Nof IavidPs stoc$#O and in a way that was Nin the sphere of the fleshO; will su""est *!ased on the discussions a!ove and to come+ that the answer is yes# and that ChristPs Narisin" from IavidO is a characteristic of Christ in the spirit worl## a mytholo"ical element.

Paul here uses the same ver! for NaroseO *descended# !orn of+ which he also uses in &alatians =:= *N!orn of woman# !orn underLsu!5ect to the lawO+. :hen discuss this latter passa"e !elow# will explore more fully the point that this is not a strai"htforward ver! of N!irthO !ut rather of N!ecomin"#O of Ncomin" into existence.O ts !roader implication fits the atmosphere of myth# the wor$in"s of the hi"her world where these processes went on.

A Windo% in Scripture
0ut letPs continue with the second element of PaulPs "ospel a!out the Son# derived from scripture: . . . and was desi"nated Son of &od in power# accordin" to the spirit *or# in the sphere of the spirit+# !y his resurrection out of the dead. 'his is o!viously an entirely spiritual event# ta$in" place in heaven after ChristPs death and resurrection *which were themselves spiritual events+. 'he epistles# especially the Pauline ones# contain several scenes and "limpses into the spiritual realm# supportin" the view that this was as much a part of reality to these writers as any events on the material earth. 0ut where specifically did Paul "et the information a!out this particular heavenly event; 'he partial sentence a!ove contains two relevant features: ChristPs desi"nation as Son of &od# and the phrase Nin powerO. :here in the sacred writin"s could Paul have found an important passa"e which contained these two elements side !y side; Psalm 2 is a royal coronation hymn. &od is represented as welcomin" and anointin" his $in"# and the writer warns the forei"n nations to !eware of their plots and am!itions. n verses 8,4 &od declaresDand !oth %ews and Christians too$ these words as directed to the Christ# the )essiah: will tell of the decree of the <ord: ?e said to me# .Fou are my son# today have !e"otten you . . . As$ of me# and will "ive you the nations as your inheritance# and the ends of the earth as your possession. ?ere# surely# is the source of PaulPs second Q"ospelP element: %esus is proclaimed &odPs Son !y &od himself. And he is invested with power# receivin" the nations of the earth as his possession. *'he ori"inal Psalm writer had srael herself# throu"h its $in"# in mind# thou"h the sentiment was no dou!t rhetorical.+ 'he theme of %esus as $in" runs li$e a thread throu"hout the entire history of Christian tradition# and it certainly was not !ased on %esusP recorded life experiences. 'he two elements# the one in the sphere of the NfleshO *the lowest heavenly sphere# associated with the material world: see !elow+# the other in the sphere of the spirit *the hi"hest level of &od# to where %esus ascended after his death+# "o hand in

hand. 'hey are !oth parts of &odPs "ospel a!out his Son# the SonPs activities in the spiritual realm# found in scripture. Paul is preachin" a %esus entirely derived from the ?e!rew !i!le. 'he early Christian movement# as reflected in Paul# was not a movement of slaves and disenfranchised poor. 'hat was a later development which is often read !ac$ into the earliest sta"e. n fact# Paul himself and the circles he moved in were hi"hly intelli"ent and sophisticated. :e can see that in his letters. 'hese people were thorou"hly immersed in the reli"ious philosophy of the day# !oth %ewish and &ree$# philosophies which could !e hi"hly mystical. t was 3uite possi!le for minds li$e PaulPs to re"ard scripture *that all,important force which "overned their lives+ as a window onto the hi"her world of N"enuineO reality# where spiritual processes too$ place which had counterparts and effects in the world !elow. 'his analysis of 9omans 1:1,= has led to the conclusion that it is the sacred writin"s# the QwindowP onto the spiritual realm# which have determined many of the features "iven to the divine Christ. f scripture said that the )essiah was descended from Iavid# then in some way this had to !e so# even if the Christ was now re"arded as an entirely spirit,world entity. 0ecause the universe held parallel counterparts# Paul could well envision that in a prototypic way# in the parallelism which existed !etween the hi"her and lower parts of the universe# Christ himself could !ear a relationship to Iavid. *'his will !e further supported when we come to examine the concept of Christ as NmanO.+ And since Paul and his contemporaries are constantly spea$in" of the NmysteriesO of &od# the Nwisdom that is folly#O we should not re3uire of them that they understood in any lo"ical or scientific sense exactly how this was so. *'o our modern minds# of course# it would simply !e "i!!erish.+

Sprung From Judah

:e mi"ht cast a comparative "lance at ?e!rews 8:1=# which is another passa"e that spea$s of ChristPs QracialP linea"e and which points toward scripture as the source: (or it is very evident *pro#:lon+ that our <ord is sprun" *anatetal*en+ from %udah# a tri!e to which )oses made no reference in spea$in" of priests. (irst of all# this statement is made in the midst of a theolo"ical ar"ument# not a recountin" of historical facts. 'he whole tenor of ?e!rews is one of presentin" Christ as a new ?i"h Priest# one who supplants the old cultic system which was run !y the priestly class of the tri!e of Aaron# the <evites. 'he writer finds ChristPs NarchetypeO in )elchizede$# who was also not a mem!er of the <evites *what tri!e he may have !een is never stated+. 'he point is# Christ must !e of a new line in order to create a new order of priesthood. And where does the writer find confirmation that the new ?i"h Priest is indeed of

a different line than the <evites; ?ow does he support this very necessary claim that Christ is Nsprun" from %udahO; :ell# there is not a word spent in appealin" to historical facts or apostolic traditions concernin" %esus of Nazareth# no reference to )ary or %oseph# no mention of his linea"e as recounted in the &ospels of )atthew and <u$e. 'he word Npro#:lonO means Nclear# manifestO to the senses or to 5ud"ment *compare 1 'imothy /:2=# 2/+6 it does not mean Na matter of historical record.O t fits the sense of Nclear to someone who $nows the scriptures#O which in itself fits the thou"ht world of the entire epistle. 'he ver! Nanatellein#O to sprin" *!y !irth+# is also the lan"ua"e of scripture. t is used in several messianic passa"es# such as @ze$iel 27:21 *Na horn shall sprin" forthO+# and Sechariah >:12. ?e!rews pointedly never says that %esus is a descendent or NsonO of Iavid6 the latter is a fi"ure the epistle shows no interest in. 'he author simply needs scriptural support for the concept of a priest arisin" from a tri!e which has never Nhad anythin" to do withO the old cult *8:1A+# a priest who can esta!lish a new law to supplant the impotent old one# and a new hope *8:14 and 17+. And to confirm %esusP role as ?i"h Priest# the writer turns to nothin" in history# he draws on no deed or sayin" from the story of %esusP life# !ut delves instead *8:18+ into the timeless pa"es of scripture: N'hou art a priest forever# in the succession of )elchizede$.O 'his line from the all,important Psalm 111 he ta$es as &odPs word to %esus. 0uchanan# in his Anchor 0i!le Commentary *%e!rews# p.12=+ notes that . n none of the Old 'estament usa"es of the ver! anatellein *sprin" from+ was it imployed to mean a .descendant. of a certain tri!e or family.. :e mi"ht also note that Nis sprun" fromO is in the perfect tense in the &ree$# not a past,tense aorist# such as we mi"ht have expected had the writer meant: N%esus of Nazareth was sprun" from %udah.O nstead# he uses the perfect Nhas sprun"O which fits the mythical outloo$: such thin"s have happened# !ut they are also eternal and timeless# 5ust as scripture# the timeless word of &od# continues to inform us of these spiritual events. 0uchanan# in his Anchor 0i!le Commentary *%e!rews# p.2/A+ admits that Nthe author may not have received the information from local tradition at all . . . *!ut+ from his use of scripture.O Scripture: &odPs QwindowP onto the hi"her spiritual world and its counterparts to earthly thin"s.

.orn of Woman
'he second Pauline passa"e most often appealed to in support of PaulPs $nowled"e of an historical %esus is &alatians =:=,/. . . .&od sent his own Son# !orn of woman# !orn under the <aw *literally# !ecomin" or arisin" out of woman L the law+ to purchase freedom for the su!5ects of the law# in order that we mi"ht attain the status of sons. 'his passa"e# too# with the verses that come after it# does not have to !e read as it

always has !een. t needs a closer examination. (irst# letPs detach and loo$ at the principal phrase# N&od sent his own Son.O 'here is no pro!lem in ta$in" this in the sense of the present,day revelation of the spiritual Christ !y &od to apostles li$e Paul. 'his is !orne out !y verse ># which says that N&od has sent *exactly the same ver!+ into our hearts the spirit of his Son. . . .O 'his is hardly the comin" of the historical %esus of Nazareth into the world# !ut the arrival of the spiritual Christ in the current phenomenon of divine revelation. Berse 8 piles the evidence of PaulPs meanin" even hi"her: NFou are therefore no lon"er a slave !ut a son# and if a son# then also !y &odPs own act an heir.O f Paul had had the acts of an historical %esus in mind when he spo$e of freedom and attainin" the status of sons *verse /+# why does he now revert to callin" such thin"s the result of an act of &od; f# however# he has in mind the re-elation of the Son and his acts in the spiritual realm# the idea of the a"ency of &od !ecomes fully intelli"i!le. And Paul continues his characteristic focus on &od in verses 4 and 7. (urther# in the &ree$ of verse /# the su!5ect of the ver! Npurchase freedomO *literally# redeem+ remains &od. n other words# Paul has introduced %esus into the present period# !ut he has failed to follow throu"h !y expressly havin" him do the redeemin" while he is hereM A"ain# if %esus is only !ein" re-eale# in the present time# &odPs role remains primary. (inally# the two 3ualifyin" phrases# N!orn of woman# !orn under the <aw#O are descriptive of this Son# !ut not necessarily tied to the present Nsendin".O 'he nternational Critical Commentary *0urton# Galatians# p.21>f+# points out that the way the ver! and participle tenses are used in the &ree$# the !irth and su!5ection to the law are presented as simple facts# with no necessary temporal relation to the main ver! Nsent.O n other words# the conditions of !ein" N!orn of womanO and !ein" Nmade su!5ect to the lawO *0urton-s preferred meanin"+ do not have to !e seen as thin"s that have occurred in the present. Paul has simply enumerated two of the characteristics of the spiritual Christ which are revelant to the issues under discussion. *'here are those who maintain that these two 3ualifyin" phrases may !e later redactions# which is always possi!le.+ 0urton also notes that the word usually translated as N!ornO *genomenon+ is not the most unam!i"uous ver! to use for this concept6 a form of gennao# to "ive !irth# would have !een more strai"htforward. nstead# Paul uses a form of ginomai# which has a !roader meanin" of Nto !ecome# to come into existence.O NOut of woman#O of course# implies !irth# !ut the point is# the !roader concept lends itself !etter to the atmosphere of myth# if that is what Paul has in mind. And his N!orn of womanO is not only somethin" that was said of certain mythical savior "ods# li$e Iionysos *and various other products of SeusP mythical dallyin"s+# it is a detail he could well have !ased not on history# !ut on the source he uses for all he says

a!out the Son: the %ewish scriptures. 'he famous passa"e in saiah 8:1=# A youn" woman is with child# and she will !ear a son and will call him mmanuel. . . was ta$en !y %ew and early Christian ali$e to refer to the )essiah. Paul lin$s this idea with %esus !ein" Nsu!5ect to the law.O 'he latter was a paradi"matic feature which Christ had to possess# so that he could stand in parallel with those whom Paul is addressin"# those who had themselves !een Nsu!5ect to the lawODuntil Christ a!ro"ated it in this new a"e of revelation and faith. A"ain# as in the 9omans 1 passa"e# if saiah referred to the )essiah as N!orn of woman#O Paul would have concluded that in some way there must have !een a spiritual world archetypal process to which this scriptural passa"e pointed. 'here would have !een little difficulty in acceptin" this# "iven the overridin" philosophy of the day which saw all thin"s on earth as counterpart copies of primary manifestations in the hi"her spiritual realm. And as the mythical stories of all savior "ods contained human,li$e features# includin" N!irthsO from women# such a characteristic of the spiritual Christ would not have seemed out of place. A "lance !ac$ to the sentiments of &alatians A should confirm that# however Paul saw Christ as N!orn of woman# !orn under the law#O he didnPt see him as arrivin" in the present time throu"h that N!irth.O 'he $ey verses are A:2A and 2/: 0efore this faith came# we were close prisoners in the custody of the law# pendin" the revelation of faith . . . Now that faith has come# the tutorPs char"e is at an end. Clearly# the present event of salvation history is not the person of %esus of Nazareth# whose life and death are once a"ain missin" from the picture. 9ather# it is the arrival of faith in the response to the missionary movement represented !y inspired apostles li$e Paul. ?ere Paul is consistent with the way he expresses himself in many other places. As for the intermediate verse 2= *the lacuna in the 3uote a!ove+# the New @n"lish 0i!le translates it as Nthe law was a $ind of tutor in char"e of us until Christ should come#O which illustrates the tendency to read &ospel preconceptions into the epistles. 0ut an alternate translation is provided in a footnote: Na $ind of tutor to conduct us to Christ.O 'his reflects the simple &ree$ words Neis ChristonO *to Christ+. 'hus we can easily arrive at the meanin" Nleadin" us to faith in ChristO or to his revelation# or to the time of such thin"s. @arlier# in verse 17# Paul spea$s of Nthe arrival of the QseedP to whom the promise was made.O Since Paul has 5ust defined this NseedO as Christ himself# some claim that this is a clear reference to the arrival of %esus in the historical sense. 0ut they overloo$ the fact that such a definition was made in order to lin$ the "entiles to A!raham throu"h Christ# so it is the present,day !elievin" "entile who can !e in mind here. 0esides# it would !e aw$ward to say that it is to Christ that Nthe

promise was made.O n any event# the case has already !een made that when early Christians spea$ of Christ Ncomin"#O this can readily !e ta$en in a spiritual sense.

Allegorical ,others
Paul# of course# never tells us the name of his NwomanO nor anythin" a!out her. And as a final aside to our loo$ at &alatians we mi"ht as$# if Paul is supposed to have )ary in mind in =:=# why does she not appear in his ela!orate alle"ory in the same chapter; n =:2=,A1 Paul ma$es his own interpretation of the story of A!raham and the two sons he had !y his two wives. 'he first woman is A!rahamPs concu!ine# the slave ?a"ar: she "ives !irth to shmael# who stands for the %ewish race which still exists in slavery under the <aw and the old covenant. 'hat race and that covenant is represented !y )ount Sinai. And what is the other half of the parallel; 'he second woman is A!rahamPs le"itimate wife# the free,!orn Sarah: she is the mother of saac# the true inheritor of &odPs promise# A!rahamPs spiritual heir. n a manner unspecified# Paul lin$s his "entile readers with saac6 they too are children of the promise# children of Sarah# who is sym!olized !y the heavenly %erusalem. 'his represents the source of the new covenant. Paul strains for some of this alle"ory# !ut on the surface the whole thin" mi"ht seem to han" to"ether. Fet somethin" is definitely missin" here. Somethin" we would expect to find# especially as Christ N!orn of womanO is still fresh in PaulPs mind. ?e is tal$in" a!out mothers and sons. :hy is )ary not wor$ed into this analo"y# if only as a secondary part of the interpretation; She was# after all# the mother of %esus himself who esta!lished the new covenant. She is surely an antitype to SarahPs archetype. So is %esus himself to saac# !oth sym!ols of sacrificed victims. *@ven thou"h saac was not actually $illed# he assumed this si"nificance in %ewish thin$in".+ Paul has spent much of &alatians A lin$in" the "entiles to A!raham throu"h Christ as his NseedO: why not dou!le such a lin$ throu"h )ary and Sarah; Could not )ary !e alle"orized as the mother of Christians; And where# for that matter# is the thin" which should have !een o!vious as the sym!ol of the new covenant# in parallel to )ount Sinai as the sym!ol of the old one: not the heavenly %erusalem !ut the )ount of Calvary where %esus was crucified# the earthly site of the !lood sacrifice which esta!lished that new covenant; Paul once a"ain shows himself to !e totally immune in his thou"ht and expression to all aspects of the incarnated life of %esus of Nazareth.

In 5Flesh6 and 5.lood6

t should !e clear !y now that Christ in the spiritual realm possessed properties which could !e called NfleshO and N!loodODin that state which the spirit world !ore in counterpart with the world of matter. As ?e!rews 2:1= says: NSince *ChristPs children+ have !lood and flesh# he too shared the same thin"s in a li$e manner.O 'his will recall the discussion a!ove concernin" inter,world relationships

!ased on the pattern of Nli$eness.O :e find such a stereotyped emphasis in several places# in %esus !ein" Nli$eO or Nin the form ofO a man. n the hymn of Philippians 2:>,11# Christ descends# N!earin" human li$eness and the fashion of a man.O :hy this o!li3ue phraseolo"y: had he not literally !een a full# actual man; n the Ascension of saiah 7# the spirits of the heavens which the Son enters and where he is crucified# Nthin$ he is flesh and a man.O ?ere the clear implication is that he is not# that he has assumed only some related resem!lance. n the ?e!rews 3uote a!ove# the word for Nin a li$e mannerO is Nparapl:siosO. 'his does not mean Nidentical#O !ut Nnear to# similar.O *'his is fortunate for @paphroditus in Philippians 2:28: if his illness had !een identical to death# Paul would !e writin" an o!ituary and not praisin" &od for his collea"uePs recovery.+ 0ut the concept of a "od possessin" the spiritual world e3uivalent of flesh and !lood needs to !e 3ualified in certain ways. As examined in "reater detail in Supplementary Article No. A# some savior "ods were envisioned as descendin" from the hi"hest sphere of heaven# where in their pure spirit form they could not suffer# and to ta$e on the sem!lance of flesh as they reached the lower celestial layers. ?ere they could under"o human,li$e experiences# suffer and die. Paul seems to have seen ChristPs sufferin" as real# that is# ChristPs flesh and !lood were close enou"h to the real thin" that he "enuinely suffered# in contrast to more sophisticated philosophers *such as Plutarch# Sallustius and the emperor %ulian: see 0i!lio"raphy+# who# as mentioned a!ove# re"arded the various savior "od myths as merely sym!olic of a!stract spiritual processes. 'he term Nin fleshO *en sar*i# or *ata sar*a+ is also a stereotyped phrase in the early Christian epistles. f we ta$e into account C. C. 0arrettPs su""estion in his translation of 9omans 1:A *see a!ove+# it may simply have si"nified the entry of Christ Ninto the sphere of flesh#O which included that lower celestial realm where Satan and the demon spirits dwelled and wrea$ed their havoc on the material world. *A"ain# see Supplementary Article No. A.+ n more "eneral terms# the phrase may have served to si"nify the world of myth itself# where "ods acted out their roles concernin" salvation and paradi"matic action. 'he &ree$s# too# could spin stories a!out their deities# !orn in caves# slain !y other divinities# sleepin" and dinin" and spea$in" in human,soundin" ways# and none of it was now re"arded as ta$in" place in history or on earth itself. *'he story of the <ordPs Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:2Af fits into the same cate"ory as the sacred meal myths of the &ree$ cults# and is somethin" devised !y Paul throu"h perceived revelationDhe received it .from the <ord.6 have dealt with this at len"th in Supplementary Article No. ># in the section N<earnin" of a Sacred )eal#O and will not repeat it here.+ 'he !ull dispatched !y )ithras was not historical6 the !lood it spilled which vitalized the earth was metaphysical. No one searched the soil of Asia )inor hopin" to unearth the "enitals severed from the &reat )otherPs consort Attis. 'o which we mi"ht compare first,century

ChristianityPs utter disinterest in the places and relics of %esusP activities *see Part One+. And so we have 1 PeterPs Nput to death in fleshO *A:14# followed !y a risin" .in spirit.+# 1 'imothyPs *A:1>+ Nmanifested in fleshO *where it says he was seen only !y an"els+6 the latter is part of a hymn which the writer calls a Npious mystery#O another of &odPs secrets rather than an historically witnessed event. :e are told in Colossians 1:22 that &od has reconciled humanity to himself N!y *ChristPs+ death in the !ody of his flesh.O And ?e!rews /:8 tells us somethin" which Christ had done Nin the days of his flesh#O somethin" derived from verses in scripture. n ?e!rews 11:/# Christ is spo$en of as Ncomin" into the world#O !ut this is the world of scripture that Christ is enterin"# in its timeless# mythical presentDor rather# the hi"her mythical world onto which scripture provided a window. *'hese and other examples of the NhumanO elements assi"ned to Christ in the @pistle to the ?e!rews will !e dealt with more fully in Supplementary Article No. 7.+

55 III 55 Christ as 5,an6

:e can now proceed to what is perhaps the most si"nificant term used !y Paul which seems to spea$ of %esus as an historical person. 'his is the word NmanO: anthr9pos. 'he only other document to "ive %esus this la!el is 1 'imothy *2:/+ !ut this can easily !e seen to !e dependent on Paul and adds nothin" to what Paul himself says. Paul uses the expression in three passa"es: 9omans /:12,17# 1 Corinthians 1/:21,22 and 1/:=/,=7. n all three# the concept is part of a comparison with another NmanO: Adam. :e have to reco"nize that one of PaulPs main concerns in these passa"es is to create a parallel and a contrast. ?e is settin" up Christ as an antithesis to Adam# and therefore he wishes to present his divine fi"ure in ways which can fit this position# !oth philosophically and poetically. <etPs !e"in with 9omans /. Paul offers the view *one he shared with a central line of %ewish thou"ht+ that Adam was responsi!le for the introduction of sinDand its conse3uence# deathDinto the world6 after him# all men have also sinned and fallen under the power of death# a fate cuttin" its universal swath throu"hout human history. At the other end of this !aneful pendulumPs swin" lies Christ. 0y &odPs N"race in the one man %esus Christ#O *simply an expansion of PaulPs common phrase Nin ChristO: see Part 'wo+# sin and its conse3uences have !een swept away. n the interests of his parallel and contrast with Adam# Paul calls Christ Nman.O 0ut Paul is also interested in somethin" more. An important feature of early Christian thou"ht is the need to find archetypal fi"ures or events in scripture which serve as NmodelsO for later fi"ures and events# especially those to do with

Christian !eliefs and expectations. *Perhaps a more QhorizontalP version of the vertical correspondence envisioned !etween hi"her and lower worlds.+ So Paul needs Adam to represent a NtypeO of which Christ is the Nantitype.O 'his is clear from what he says in 9omans /:1=: N. . . and Adam foreshadows the )an who was to come.O 'his N@0 translation# as so many of them do# once a"ain reads &ospel preconceptions into a text which is at !est am!i"uous. <iterally# N. . . Adam# who is the type of the one comin"#O may mean one who was to come in the past# or one who is still to come. *:e-ll ta$e a closer loo$ at this tellin" phrase later.+ n 1 Corinthians 1/# Paul sets up further parallels and contrasts# types and antitypes. Adam is the Nfirst manO and Christ is the Nsecond manO or Nlast Adam.O Adam was the prototype for all humans in his earthly !ody6 Christ will provide the prototype of the heavenly !ody which all Christians will receive at their resurrection. 'hus PaulPs overall presentation of Christ as NmanO serves his theolo"ical and literary purposes. Actually# Paul uses the word Nanthr9posO of Christ only three times throu"hout the three passa"es. ?e seems to !e more interested in callin" Christ the last A#am *which in ?e!rew means NmanO+ in order to provide an antithesis to the first Adam# rather than in ma$in" any statement that Christ was a human man. :e should also remem!er that Adam himself was in current %ewish thou"ht a lar"er, than,life fi"ure# almost mytholo"ical# which would ma$e Christ as NmanO in a heavenly# mythical sense more compara!le with him. 0oth# for Paul# are representative fi"ures# not historical individuals. 0ut on what !asis can Paul call Christ NmanO if he was not a recent human !ein" who had lived and died in Palestine; Paul is ma$in" a statement a!out the divine Son# la!elin" him NmanO as one of his attri!utes. ?is startin" point is the spiritual Christ in heaven# not a recent human !ein" who had wal$ed the earth in historical times. Such a man he never refers to6 such a man is nota!ly missin" in his presentation of Adam and Christ# especially in the second Corinthians passa"e# as we shall see. n what way# then# can a divinity in heaven# one who has never !een on earth# !e spo$en of as NmanO;

The 1ea*enly ,an

'he answer is a complex oneDand uncertain# for there is more than one way Paul could have viewed thin"s. And the 3uestion involves a much,de!ated type of speculative thin$in" in ancient myth a!out which we $now too little. @ven to ma$e "eneralized statements a!out the concept $nown as the N?eavenly )anO *or Primal )an# Archetypal )an+ is difficult# since its various expressions show little consistency and the evidence is lar"ely fra"mentary. 0ut we can approach it throu"h a writer who has left us enou"h to provide one specific view of the idea: the Alexandrian %ewish philosopher Philo.

n adaptin" Platonic,style ideas a!out a ?eavenly )an to the %ewish scriptures# Philo had invalua!le# if unintended# help from the compilers of the 0oo$ of &enesis. Centuries earlier these editors had found themselves with two different creation stories on their hands# !oth old# from different parts of the nation. 'hey ended up lar"ely 5uxtaposin" them in the first two chapters of the 0i!lePs openin" !oo$. And so someone li$e Philo could read these two separate statements in the sacred writin"s: 'hen &od said: <et us ma$e man in our ima"e. . . . So &od created man in his own ima"e6 in the ima"e of &od he created him. . . .O *&enesis 1:2>,28+ 'hen the <ord &od formed a man *or Adam+ from the dust of the "round# and !reathed into his nostrils the !reath of life.O *&enesis 2:8+ :hat !etter evidence that &od was a Platonist; (or the first statement# in &enesis 1# surely descri!ed the creation of the Platonic +#ea of man# the spiritual prototype in heaven. ?e was part of the creation of the whole Nintelli"i!le worldO *the one $nown !y intellectual understandin"+# that upper realm of ideal# perfect thin"s of which the lower world of matter# the Nperceiva!le worldO *the one $nown !y the senses+# was only an imperfect copy. &enesis 2# on the other hand# recounted the creation of the ideal manPs copy# made out of the dust of matter. t is the firstDspiritualDNmanO who is said to !e made Nin the ima"e of &od#O and this fitted the Platonic conception of &odPs emanations formin" the first N!ein"O apart from himself# his direct ima"e# his Nfirst,!orn.O *'his Philo sometimes identifies with his "eneral term N<o"osO which he uses for the sum of &odPs primary emanations and powers which wor$ on the universe.+ 0ut letPs 3uote PhiloPs own words:
N'here are two $inds of men. 'he one is ?eavenly )an# the other earthly. 'he

?eavenly )an !ein" in the ima"e of &od has no part in corrupti!le su!stance# or in any earthly su!stance whatever6 !ut the earthly man was made of "erminal matter which the writer Gof &enesisH calls Ndust.O (or this reason he does not say that the ?eavenly )an was created# !ut that he was stamped with the ima"e of &od# whereas the earthly man is a creature and not the offsprin" of the Creator.O *(rom Allegorical +nterpretation of the 4aw 1#A1# translated !y C. ?. Iodd.+ n spea$in" of &odPs Nima"eO Philo is not referrin" to anythin" anthropomorphic# for &od possessed no NshapeO and certainly not a human one. @lsewhere# Philo says that Nthe word Qima"eP refers to the mind which is the "overnor of the soul.O ?e re"ards the earthly material copy of the ?eavenly )an as a replica only in an internal way# sharin" the hi"her divinityDand !ein" ultimately a copy of &od himselfDonly in re"ard to his soul# not his outward appearance. 'he ?eavenly )an is incorporeal and incorrupti!le# neither male nor female6 he remains transcendent in heaven with &od. *(or more on Philo of Alexandria# see

Supplementary Article No. /.+ 'he dualistic Platonic distinction !etween a celestial man and an earthly man seems not to have !een made in more mainstream %ewish thin$in" a!out &enesis. 9ather# Adam himself tended to !e "lorified !y the ra!!is and made into a prototype# an extraordinary (irst )an of far "reater scope than we see in the familiar &enesisDalmost mytholo"ical. Other parts of the Old 'estament show traces of a le"endary first man as a $ind of demi,"od# exceedin"ly wise and sharin" &odPs counsel. *See %o! 1/:8f and @ze$iel 24.+ And what of the !roader ?ellenistic world; :hat connection did such a "lorified Adam in %ewish tradition have with what seems to have !een a more widespread myth of a Primal )an *which scholars usually refer to !y the &erman term NEr, menschO+; 'his Primal )an used to !e thou"ht of as derivin" from ancient ranian and 0a!ylonian mytholo"y. ?e was a heavenly !ein"# a first,!orn# who existed with &od from the !e"innin"# sometimes as a $in" of paradise. ?e was involved in stru""les in the heavenly realms with forces of evil and chaos. Out of these stru""les the world of matter and humans came into existence. n some versions# humanity even contains fallen portions of this Primal )an. @ventually he !ecomes a 9edeemer who descends to earth# reveals &od to humans and the fact that they possess divine elements within themselves6 finally# he shows them how to ascend to heaven and re"ain their ori"inal divine home. n some &nostic documents# the fi"ure 5ust descri!ed is only a NsonO or Nson of )an#O for in that Qchain of "enerationP mentioned near the !e"innin"# the Primal )an is the supreme &od himself# since in him lies the ima"e of all creation# includin" material man. Some have su""ested that the &ospel term NSon of )anO may have arisen from this meanin"# that the comin" @nd,time fi"ure is the Son of &od# referred to as )an. <ately there has !een more s$epticism a!out the pervasiveness of a Primal )an myth in pre,Christian times. Such ideas emer"e clearly only in the &nostic faiths of the 2nd century and in the later )andaean and )anichaean reli"ions centered in )esopotamia. 'he de!ate ra"es around the 3uestion of how far !ac$ we may read such doctrines into earlier mythical thou"ht. )i"ht early strands of &nosticism have existed in centers li$e Antioch; Iid they have a form which could have influenced Paul and others; f Paul seems to cast thin"s in a more %ewish mold# had his %ewish milieu# especially throu"h its connections with Persia and 0a!ylon# already a!sor!ed the effects of such Oriental myths; 'hese 3uestions cannot yet !e answered# if ever they can. Perhaps ultimately we are thrown !ac$ on analyzin" what Paul himself actually says. t is le"itimate to $eep in mind# however# that a !roader pool of ideas a!out a ?eavenly )an were part of ancient world thou"ht# re"ardless of 5ust when the survivin" evidence allows us to place any specifics chronolo"ically6 and that the Alexandrian Philo#

who lar"ely precedes Paul# clearly shows one very important type of Nheavenly manO to which PaulPs concept mi"ht !e compared.

The Physical and the Spiritual

0ut letPs turn to the Pauline passa"es themselves and see what can !e "leaned from them. 'he most important for our purposes is 1 Corinthians 1/:==!,=7. ?ere it is in a more,or,less literal rendition !ased on standard translations: G==!H f there is *such a thin" as+ a naturalLphysical !ody# there is also a spiritual *!ody+. G=/H And so it is written: N'he first man# Adam# !ecame a livin" soulO6 the last Adam *!ecame+ a life,"ivin" spirit. G=>H ?owever# the spiritual *!ody+ is not first6 rather# the material *one+# then the spiritual. G=8H 'he first man *was+ out of the earth# of earthly *material+# the second man *is+ out of heaven. G=4H As the man of earth *was+# so also *are+ those of earth6 and as *is+ the man of heaven# so also *areLshall !e;+ those of heaven *or the heavenly !ein"s+. G=7H And as we !ore the ima"e of the one of earth# we shall also !ear the ima"e of the one of heaven. 'here can !e few passa"es in the epistles where scholars are more "uilty of readin" into the !are words all that they wish to see in them. 'he first thin" to note is that there is a lot of am!i"uity in this passa"e# for Paul has left out almost all the ver!s. Some of those supplied are natural# !ut read the passa"e without the words in !rac$ets and one can see how much critical am!i"uity resides in the sense of it all. 'ranslators tend to use ver!s and prepositions which connote the idea of Christ as someone who recently came from heaven down to earth# fittin" the &ospel presentation. *As %ean ?Krin" puts it# Christ Ndescended from heaven.O+ 0ut the &ree$ words convey no necessary sense of movement. :e can compare a similar common misreadin" of 1/:21: (or since it was a man who !rou"ht death into the world# a man also !rou"ht resurrection of the dead. *N@0+ ?ere such ver!s are supplied !y the translators. <iterally# the sentence reads: N(or since throu"h a man death# also throu"h a man resurrection of the dead.O 'he ver!s usually inserted convey the sense of some recent event on earth# yet the next verse# 22# actually points to the future: NSo in Christ all will !e !rou"ht to life#O which may !e closer to PaulPs concept of %esus as NmanO: somethin" oriented toward the future. :ePll loo$ at this point more closely in a moment. 0ut the most critical mistranslation occurs in verse =/: 'he first man# Adam# !ecame a livin" soul6 the last Adam *!ecame+ a life,"ivin" spirit. 'he ver! N!ecameO *egeneto+ "overns !oth parts# the references to !oth Adam and Christ. Fet the @n"lish N!ecameO is misleadin"# for it su""ests a conversion from one thin"# one state# to another. 'his is indeed one of the meanin"s of NginomaiO

!ut it cannot !e so here# for such a concept cannot apply to Adam. Paul must mean ginomai in the more fundamental of its senses# that of Ncomin" into existence as#O to form the nature of# for he surely means that Adam was create# as Na livin" soulO *5ust as the &enesis passa"e he is 3uotin" does+. ?e is definin" Adam here# not spea$in" of a chan"e from one state into another. *'he preposition NeisO need not denote NintoO in the sense of conversion# !ut has more the sense of NasO in a predicate accusative phrase# li$e 1 )acca!ees 11:>2: N?e too$ the sons as hosta"es.O+ t follows that the second half of the verse *where the ver! is only understood+ should imply the same thin": that Christ is of the nature of a life,"ivin" spirit# not that he went from some previous state to another state. Fet the latter is the way scholars li$e to interpret itDindeed# they are forced to do so: their preconceptions a!out an historical %esus re3uire them to maintain that Paul is referrin" to %esusP state only after his resurrection# when he had ta$en on a spiritual !ody# even if this is not !orne out !y the text or its context. %ean ?Krin" *) Corinthians# p.18/+ is the only commentator have seen who provides what su""est is the proper $ind of translation: 'he first Adam was created to have a livin" nature# the second Adam to !e a life, "ivin" spirit. 'his removes any implied reference to the resurrection of Christ. :e are thus left with a passa"e *verses A/,/8+ which focuses on the resurrection of Christians and what form their raised !ody will ta$e# and yet one which ma$es not the sli"htest "lance toward %esusP own resurrectionDan amazin" silenceM 'he scholarly claim that Paul is descri!in" the !ody Christians will receive in terms of the one possessed !y Christ after his resurrection has no foundation in the text.

An Impossi)le Silence
PaulPs silence on this point is extremely revealin". f !y the term NmanO Paul were referrin" to %esus of Nazareth# the historical fi"ure# then such a silence could not !e allowed to stand# for it would "et Paul into all sorts of difficulties. 'he recent presence of Christ on earth as an NearthlyO man would destroy PaulPs carefully crafted antithesis. Note how he compares Adam and Christ. 'he main point of contrast is that the first NmanODAdamDis made of earthly material6 this material corresponds to the NfleshO which Paul has !een discussin" in the previous verses *A/,==a+# where he contrasts earthly !odies of flesh with heavenly !odies# the sun and stars which were re"arded as spirit !ein"s or an"els. ?e sums up *verse ==a+ !y sayin" that the present NphysicalO !ody of the Christian is to !e raised as a NspiritualO !ody# which for him is somethin" completely different in su!stance from the physical one. 'his is the whole point of his discussion# that the spiritual !ody will !e somethin"

new and different. ?is purpose here is to counter those in Corinth who seem to have denied the resurrection of the dead !ecause they could conceive only of the resurrection of the physical !ody# somethin" &ree$s "enerally re5ected as repu"nant. Paul is presentin" an alternative: the resurrection !ody will !e a spiritual !ody# modeled on ChristPs own. 0ut how can he do this; ?ow can he "o on to offer the last Adam# Christ# as the prototype for the resurrected !ody of Christians; (or Christ himself# when on earth# would have possessed a !ody not of heavenly material !ut of earthly stuff# the same as AdamPs. f PaulPs term NmanO as applied to Christ refers to the man %esus of NazarethDwhich most scholars declare it doesDthis ruins everythin"# for that man did not possess a spiritual !ody !ut one made of the same# physical# material which Christians are now composed of. t would !e a!solutely necessary for Paul to clarify thin"s. f at no other place in his letters# here he would have to ma$e a clear reference to the historical %esus. ?e would have to point out that the NmanO he is referrin" to# the !ody which this NmanO possesses# is not the !ody he had when he was on earth# the one of dust li$e AdamPs# !ut rather the one he now possesses su!se3uent to his resurrection. A clear reference to the resurrection as producin" a chan"e of state would !e unavoida!le. Scholars# of course# declare that this is implied. 0ut a mind as precise and comprehensive as PaulPs would not have left this am!i"uity han"in" in the air# especially when it could have !een dealt with in little more than a phrase. ?e could not have "one on to ali"n earthly !ein"s with the earthly man Adam# and heavenly !ein"s with the heavenly man Christ# and totally i"nore one "larin" loose end: what was the earthly man %esus of Nazareth to !e related to; ?ow did he fit into this neat# two,compartment picture of thin"s; * am not# of course# 3uestionin" here that Paul !elieves in ChristPs resurrection# which he refers to often6 !ut neither here nor anywhere else is that resurrection presented as one from an historical human !ody to a divine heavenly one.+ 0ut more than that. 'here is somethin" else which Paul could not possi!ly have i"nored# an opportunity he would never have passed up. f Christ is now a Nspirit#O possessin" purely heavenly stuff# then he provides the perfect illustration for the point Paul is strivin" to ma$e. (or %esus of Nazareth# from his physical# earthly !ody passed throu"h resurrection and too$ on a different spiritual !ody. s this not exactly what Paul is contendin" will happen to his own readers; :hy would Paul pass up the ideal analo"y in %esusP own resurrection; 'his also raises a collateral difficulty# !ut perhaps the reader is already ahead of me. Paul here and elsewhere is statin"# adamantly and unam!i"uously# that human resurrection is to a new state. As he says in verses /1,/A: Nflesh and !lood can never possess the $in"dom of &od . . . the dead will rise immortal and we shall !e chan"ed . . . mortality will !e clothed with immortality.O 9o!in Scro""s *The 4ast

A#am# p.7A+ is forced to conclude that verses =8,/1 Nindicate that for the Apostle his <ord rose from the dead in a spiritual !ody.O :hat then would Paul ma$e of the &ospel tradition that %esus rose in the flesh# that he appeared to his disciples in earthly form# and even let 'homas press his fin"ers into his fleshly side and wound; f Christ *in the scholars- context of -implication-+ were to provide a parallel to the fate in store for Christians# a resurrection not into flesh !ut into spirit# how would Paul deal with this contradiction; ?ow could %esus serve as a model if his own resurrection experience doesnPt fit PaulPs presentation of thin"s; 'he very factDaccordin" to the &ospel storyDthat %esus had risen from flesh to flesh would present a "larin" anomaly with the pattern of resurrection that Paul is settin" up in this passa"e# and would have to !e dealt with. 0y now# of course# we $now that Paul nowhere addresses such complications. 0y now# the reasonin" reader must realize that Paul $nows of no !odily resurrection# of no recent physical incarnation# no human %esus of Nazareth. :hen Paul wrote# no story of the empty tom! existed6 the "raphic accounts presented in the &ospels were un$nown to him. Scro""s "oes on to allow that Paul understood that Christ had appeared to him *the vision descri!ed in 1 Corinthians 1/:4+ in an entirely spiritual form# and that he e3uated this appearance with the appearances to all the others *the ones descri!ed in verses /,8+. )odern critical scholars have recently come to ac$nowled"e that they were all the same *see Supplementary Article No. >+. Scro""s# writin" in 17>># contents himself with remar$in" that Nthe New 'estament church does not a"ree a!out the nature of ChristPs resurrection !ody.O

Paul7s 1ea*enly ,an

:e can now "o !ac$ to 1 Corinthians 1/:=/,=7 and ta$e a fresh loo$ at thin"s. f the last man is a life,"ivin" spirit# the term NmanO is o!viously !ein" used of a heavenly fi"ure. Since no 3ualification is put on this to relate it to a previous physical state of this NmanO on earth# since there is no addressin" of the complications which all that the latter would involve# we are 5ustified in concludin" that the concept of a purely Nheavenly manO exists for Paul# and that Christ is such a man. ?ere we also see another Christian thin$er *cf. ?e!rews 11:/# a!ove+ usin" the term N!odyO and locatin" it in the spiritual world# which allows us# !y implication# to do the same for terms li$e NfleshO and N!lood.O )ost scholars cannot !rin" themselves to such plain conclusions. )offat *The First Epistle to the Corinthians# p.2/4f+ fud"es ChristPs spiritual !ody and PaulPs ri"id separation !etween physical and spiritual !y offerin" a far too sophisticated Dand modernDreadin" of PaulPs thou"ht# no dou!t wishin" to preserve the later ApostlesP Creed declaration that we shall indeed !e resurrected in the flesh. Scro""s *op.cit.# p.111f+ reco"nizes that Paul calls Christ NmanO even thou"h in a spiritual !ody# and so he is led to define ChristPs heavenly nature as Nhuman#O a prime example of forcin" words into so,called meanin"s which exist only in the

minds of those who must en"a"e in this $ind of dou!le,thin$. 'o 5ustify this !y definin" NhumanO as the post,resurrection destiny of human !ein"s after the @nd# usin" phrases li$e Neschatolo"ical humanityO and Ntrue man#O could only !e done !y a theolo"ian. t need hardly !e said that Paul himself "ives us no hint in the text of all this tortured# implicit meanin". Paul ma$es strai"htforward statements a!out his heavenly man. As opposed to Adam# who was of earth and made of earthly stuff *Nthe dust of the earth#O as many translations put it+# the second man is Nout of heavenO *e$ ouranou+# meanin" he !elon"s to# or is a product of heaven# 5ust as Adam is Nout of earthO *e* g:s+. ?ere a"ain we can see the pro!lem of misleadin" translations# for if e$ ouranou is rendered Nfrom heaven#O implyin" that Christ came to earth from there# this ma$es nonsense of the e* g:s# for where did Adam come to Nfrom earthO; No# the preposition in !oth places *itPs the same one+ simply means that each fi"ure !elon"s to its own sphere. Adam is a part of earth# made of earth *choi*os+6 Christ is a part of heaven# made of heavenly stuff *understood+. Scro""s calls it non, corporeal and Nli$e that of the an"els.O t is this heavenly stuff which resurrected Christians will ta$e on6 they shall !ear ChristPs Nima"e#O meanin" his nature# as verse =7 states. One final point: the so,called se3uence of NfirstO and NsecondLlastO is automatically assumed to support an understandin" of Christ as a recent historical person. ?e arrived NsecondODin historyDin contrast to Adam who was# historically# the first man. f Paul# it is claimed# were reflectin" some $ind of Primal )an idea# or Platonic concept of prototypic man# Christ would need to !e ran$ed first# !efore or hi"her than Adam. Perhaps so# !ut there is nothin" to prevent Paul from comin" up with a special ran$in" for his own purposes# one he can 5ustify. ?ere PaulPs need is to provide a parallel to the destiny of Christians# to their pro"ression from an earthly !ody to a spiritual !ody *verse =>+. ?e may le"itimately present Adam and Christ in the order in which these respective NmenO had an effect on humanity. At the !e"innin" Adam !rou"ht sin and death into the world# !ut in this present# final a"e it is the man of heaven who has !een revealed# the one who provides salvation from sin and death and a prototype for the resurrection !ody.

A ,an 8et To Come

0ut there is another# simpler way of re"ardin" PaulPs se3uence# one which helps us to define more closely his concept of Nheavenly man#O Christ is the heavenly man who will !e arrivin" on earth at the imminent @nd,time. 'he other pole of PaulPs NhistoricalO se3uence lies in the future. 'his eschatolo"ical meanin" Paul points to in his use of the word NlastO *eschaton+# which he interchan"es with NsecondO *#euteros+. n fact# Paul earlier in 1 Corinthians 1/ does more than point# he spells it out for us. 'he action of Christ in !rin"in" resurrection to Christians lies not in

the recent past# !ut in the future# at the Parousia: As in Adam all men die# so in Christ all will !e !rou"ht to life6 !ut each in its proper order: Christ the firstfruits Gi.e.# at his own resurrection# a mythical oneH and afterwards# at his comin" Gthe ParousiaH# those who !elon" to Christ. G1/:22,2AH Now we can see the critical nature of that am!i"uity in the texts which is so often "iven an historical slant when ver!s are supplied. Any Ncomin"O from heaven# any N!rin"in"O of resurrection# needs to !e placed not in the past# not in any recent life of %esus of Nazareth# !ut in the future. :hen Paul in 9omans /:1= says that NAdam foreshadows the man to come#O *literally# the one comin"+# he is not spea$in" of an incarnated %esus !ut of the heavenly man *li$e the &ospel NSon of )an#O thou"h Paul never uses this term+ who will arrive at the Parousia to 5ud"e# resurrect the ri"hteous and esta!lish &odPs Cin"dom. Now# perhaps# we can even allow for some sense of movement Nfrom heavenO in the way Paul descri!es him# the sense which translators inevita!ly try to wor$ in. 0ut this is a movement which has not yet occurred. 0arrett *First Epistle to the Corinthians# p.A8>+ assumes this eschatolo"ical meanin"# !ut then runs up a"ainst a "larin" silence# which he !lithely dismisses with this comment: N t is not part of PaulPs ar"ument here to say that the heavenly man has already come in the form of earthly man.O En3ueried assumptions are a "reat pacifier# and 0arrett has mana"ed to close his mind to the impossi!ility of Paul ma$in" such a statement which ma$es no allowance# stated or unstated# for any previous Ncomin"O of this eschatolo"ical man. :itness also 0arrettPs comment on 1/:22. ?ere *p.A/A+ he admits that Paul spea$s of neither AdamPs nor ChristPs activities specifically in terms of historical events. Fet: NAs Paul $new# this event had happened very recently# and its character as an historical event raised no dou!t or pro!lem in his mind.O 'he a!ility to read such a mind# and to a!solve it of the pro!lems it never had an in$lin" of# is clearly an invalua!le asset in interpretin" such passa"es. 'hus# in the end# PaulPs Nheavenly manO may !e a relatively simple one to understand# the man essentially of %ewish apocalyptic expectation# thou"h for Paul his )essiah is a divine one. Still# we can sense vi!rations from other trends of thou"ht# which undou!tedly fed into PaulPs formulations. <i$e Philo# PaulPs heavenly man is a resident of the spiritual world and incorporeal# not made of matter. <i$e the related Platonic concept# he is pre,existent and provides a pattern# the su!stance of what Christians will !ecome when they are resurrected. :hether other NPrimal )anO influences are present is difficult to say. 0ut passa"es li$e 9omans 4:27 show that Christ for Paul is the prototypic Nfirst,!ornO of &odPs sons *in that Qchain of "enerationP+# !elievin" Christians !ein" his youn"er !rothers# modeled after the eldest. (inally# as in current %ewish exe"etical practice# the heavenly man provides a Ntype#O thou"h Paul has also placed him at the other pole of the antithesis and ma$es Adam the NtypeO for Christ.

)uch of all this is simply an intellectual exercise on PaulPs part and no one !ut the theolo"ian should feel constrained to invest it with some $ind of cosmic reality. Paul was a preacher# one who pored over the sacred writin"s# a deep thin$er in the dar$ness of the ni"ht# no dou!t. ?e read thin"s# a!sor!ed influences from the world around him# and constructed his philosophical fantasies accordin" to his needs. n the "larin" a!sence of any identification of his Nheavenly manO with the recent earthly %esus of Nazareth# we are fully entitled to place PaulPs anthr9pos within the lar"er# contemporary philosophical settin" of the time# %ewish and &ree$# leavened throu"h his own intellect and faith. And to conclude that this NmanO had nothin" to do with an historical %esus.

Supplementary Article No. 7

A SACRIFICE IN HEA6EN
The So i the Epi&t,e to the He7%e8& 55 I 55 A 9e% Son and Co*enant
)ore than any other New 'estament document# the @pistle to the ?e!rews contains all the elements needed to understand the "eneral nature of early cultic Christianity. 'his# despite the fact that it is often styled an anomaly# even Nan alien presence in the New 'estamentO *<. I. ?urst# %e!rews: +ts 5ac*groun# an# Thought# p.1+# since its presentation of Christ is so uni3ue. :ho the writer is# where he writes# whom he is addressin" remain un$nown. 0ut in this carefully crafted treatise# the author of ?e!rews is spea$in" to a "roup which has !een founded on a revelatory experience at some time in the past *2:A,=6 see Supplementary Article No. 8+# a "roup which now shares a distinctive christolo"y and sectarian outloo$. 'hey expect the end of the present world to arrive shortly *1:2# A:1=# etc.+. 'he community has $nown persecution *11:A2f+ and is perhaps in dan"er of losin" its faith or fervor# thus promptin" this treatise. 'he thou"ht world of the epistle is stron"ly %ewish *thou"h of a variety outside the mainstream and with ?ellenistic elements+# and if as some su""est the writer is part of a "entile community# then it is one which has fully a!sor!ed and adopted a %ewish identity. 'he epistle tends to !e dated fairly early# !etween >1 and 71# and many lean toward locatin" it !efore the destruction of the 'emple in 81# since nothin" of that event surfaces in the authorPs focus on the sacrificial cult. 'hose elements in ?e!rews which reveal the nature of incipient Christianity lie surprisin"ly clear to the eye# and they !e"in at the very head of the epistle. ?ere

are the openin" four verses# courtesy of the New @n"lish 0i!le:
1

:hen in former times &od spo$e to our forefathers# he spo$e in fra"mentary and varied fashion throu"h the prophets. 20ut in this final a"e *literally# these last days+ he has spo$en to us in the Son *en huio+# whom he has made heir to the whole universe# and throu"h whom he created all orders of existence: Athe Son who is the efful"ence of &odPs splendor and the stamp of &odPs very !ein"# and sustains the universe !y his word of power. :hen he had !rou"ht a!out the pur"ation of sins# he too$ his seat at the ri"ht hand of )a5esty on hi"h# =raised as far a!ove the an"els as the title he has inherited is superior to theirs. 'he fundamental theolo"y of this community is a !elief in the Son# and here the author defines this entity. ?is concept fits into the widespread ?ellenistic doctrine of the N<o"osODthou"h the word itself does not appear anywhere in the epistle in this senseDand the lan"ua"e closely resem!les that used of %ewish personified :isdom in The 2is#om of .olomon *as in 8:2>+# an important document of ?ellenistic %udaism written most li$ely in Alexandria early in the first century C@. ?ere :isdom has !een cast in a <o"os mold. ?e!rewsP NSonO reflects the dominant reli"ious philosophy of the a"e# that the ultimate &od emanates a force or secondary divinity that constitutes his ima"e# one who has served to effect creation and who provides the on"oin" sustainin" power of the universe. 'he Son is also an intermediary channel !etween heaven and earth# and for this "roup# as for so many others on the Christian cultic scene *compare 1 %ohn /:21+# he conforms to another aspect of personified :isdom in that he serves as the voice of &od to humanity# revealin" $nowled"e a!out the Ieity and the availa!ility of salvation. (inally# in a feature shared !y not 3uite so many early Christian "roups# this sect re"ards the Son as an a"ent of salvation throu"h a sacrifice for sin. 'his doctrine is what the writer will concentrate on throu"hout the epistle. ?e will cast it in a uni3ue settin" and christolo"y which lies outside standard <o"os concepts and ta$es up residence in that most ancient of %ewish institutions: the sacrificial cult of the 'emple as it !ecame em!odied in the le"ends of the @xodus and the esta!lishment of the first covenant on )ount Sinai. (or the community of ?e!rews# the Son %esus Christ is the spiritual ?i"h Priest whose sacrifice in heaven has esta!lished a new covenant to supplant the old.

A ,issing E:uation and a Silent +oice

(or all that is said a!out the Son here and throu"hout this lon"est of the New 'estament epistles after 9omans# we should immediately note what is not said. (irst# no e3uation is ever made of this divine fi"ure with the human man %esus of Nazareth# $nown to later Christianity from the &ospels. As we shall see# the Son

inha!its not an earthly settin"# !ut a hi"her world revealed !y scripture6 more than one passa"e tells us# in fact# that he had never !een to earth *see @pilo"ue+. n the openin" verses 3uoted a!ove# the writer alludes to the SonPs wor$ of salvation# a !are statement that he had N!rou"ht a!out the pur"ation of sinsO *v.A+. Not only does this lac$ any context of a life on earth# the act itself will !e placed !y the writer in a heavenly sanctuary# a spiritual world settin" of a Platonic type. ?ere we can see that the earliest expression of Christ !elief had nothin" to do with a reaction to an historical preachin" sa"e and everythin" to do with the heady expressions of contemporary &ree$ and %ewish philosophy# a!out the unseen realm of heaven and the various manifestations of Ieity which existed there. n that unseen reality# the writer is concerned with esta!lishin" certain thin"s a!out the Son. f we "o on from verse = a!ove# we find that one of these is that he is Nsuperior to the an"els.O 'o prove this# the writer 3uotes several passa"es from the Psalms and elsewhere# comparin" what &od says a!out the an"els with what he says *as the writer sees it+ a!out the Son. 'he latter includes Psalm 2:8Ps famous: N'hou art my Son6 today have !e"otten you.O n 3uotin" Psalm =/:># the writer seems to re"ard the Son as !ein" addressed !y the term N&od.O Psalm 112Ps declaration that throu"h the Son was the earthPs foundation laid# and Psalm 111Ps invitation to the Son to sit at &odPs ri"ht hand# proves for the writer that he is Nsuperior to the an"els.O 0ut should we not wonder why the writer did not thin$ to appeal to the SonPs incarnation# to his life and ministry on earth# to his risin" from the tom!# to prove such a superiority; n fact# one of the "larin" silences in this epistle is the failure to mention the resurrection at allM (or that# %ean ?Krin" *%e!rews# p.xi+ calls this wor$ Nan eni"ma.O :hat the writer is doin"# of course# is usin" scripture to cast li"ht on the wor$in"s of the hi"her realm. %esus the Son# to"ether with the an"els# are exclusively spiritual fi"ures# part of the paraphernalia of heaven# with %esus defined *as in 1:A+ in thorou"hly mytholo"ical terms. 'he writer needs to ran$ the heavenly Christ a!ove the an"els !ecause he re"ards him as the a"ency of the new covenant# whereas the an"els have !een associated with the deliverin" of the old covenant# now superseded. ChristPs proven superiority will support the superiority of this new covenant and the validity of the communityPs covenant theolo"y. n the face of such a need# it is unthin$a!le that all aspects of the SonPs nature and activities would not !e appealed to. ?Krin"Ps Neni"maO is a pale 5ud"ment on the pervasive and inexplica!le silence in this epistle a!out every aspect of %esusP career on earth. *'hose handful of references which scholars li$e to point to as allusions to &ospel details are !etter seen as dependent on scripture and will !e dealt with later in this article.+ Our second focus on what is not said in ?e!rews proceeds from the openin" declaration# that in this final a"e &od has Nspo$en to us in *or throu"h+ the Son.O s it feasi!le that# after expressin" such a sentiment# the writer would "o on throu"h

1A chapters and never once "ive us a word of what this Son spo$e on earth; Not a sin"le &ospel sayin" is introduced# not even a reference to the fact itself that %esus had tau"ht in a human ministry. Chapter 2 !e"ins with the idea that Nwe must pay heed to the thin"s we were told#O !ut this is evidently not to include the words delivered !y the Son while on earth# since they are never presented. And when the writer "oes on to refer to the experience which lay at the inau"uration of the sect# the Nannouncement of salvation throu"h the <ordO *2:A,=+# this is clearly a revelatory event he is descri!in"# and not any ministry of %esus. *See The $aunching of a Sect in Supplementary Article No. 8# 'ransfi"ured on the ?oly )ountain# for a fuller discussion of this passa"e.+ n ?e!rews# the NvoiceO of the Son comes entirely from scripture# and it is a voice which spea$s in the present# not from the past. :hen the author first 3uotes the SonPs perceived words in the Psalms and saiah *2:12,1A+# he introduces them in the present tense: Nhe saysO *the &ree$ present participle legon+. 'he Son is an entity who is $nown and communicates now and today# throu"h the sacred writin"s. 'he words in these particular 3uotations are used to illustrate the contention that the Son is not ashamed to call !elievers his !rothers. Fet more than one commentator has wondered why# instead of "oin" to the Old 'estament to prove his point# the writer does not draw on any of %esusP several statements on the su!5ect# as recorded in the &ospels. :hy not <u$e 4:21 *and parallels+: N)y !rothers are those who hear the word of &od and act on it.O Or )ar$ A:A/: N:hoever does the will of &od is my !rother.O Or )atthew 2/:=1: NAnythin" you did for one of my !rothers . . . you did for me.O @ven %ohn 21:18 mi"ht have served: N&o to my !rothers and tell them that am now ascendin" to my (ather. . .O Ioes the writer lac$ all $nowled"e of such sayin"s !y %esus in an earthly ministry; &raham ?u"hes# in his study of ?e!rews *%e!rews an# %ermeneutics# p.>2+# shows to what !izarre len"ths scholars can "o in order to account for such silences. ?e 3uestions why the writer did not draw on those &ospel sayin"s which NcoincideO with the Old 'estament verses he actually uses. ?u"hesP first assumption is that such sayin"s were well $nown to the author. So much so# he says# that he re"arded the Old 'estament 3uotations as NformsO of the &ospel sayin"s. 'hus# Nthe former can now !e appropriated to "ive expression to the latter.O Once the !rain stops spinnin"# the reader may well as$: why should the author pass up 3uotin" %esusP sayin"s themselves in favor of 3uotin" Old 'estament verses which Qstand for themP; f he wants to N"ive expression toO the sayin"s# why not 5ust 3uote the sayin"s; 'his is a "ood example of a common scholarly practice of definin" somethin" as its opposite: the a!sence of any &ospel sayin"s in ?e!rews is really a 3uotation of those sayin"s throu"h their Old 'estament prefi"urationsM

n actuality# all we have in ?e!rews are those Old 'estament verses. 'hey show that the voice of the Son throu"h which &od spea$s in this final a"e is the voice heard in a new interpretation of the sacred writin"s# that for sects li$e the one which produced this epistle# scripture provides a window onto the hi"her world where &od and the Son do their wor$ and communicate with humanity.

A Spirit World .ody

f we "o on to 11:/,8# thin"s !ecome even clearer. ?ere the Son spea$s in what mi"ht !e styled a Nmythical presentO throu"h a passa"e from Psalm =1 *actually# from the Septua"int version# No. A7# showin" that the community lives in a ?ellenistic milieu# not a ?e!rew one+: 'hat is why# at his comin" into the world# he says: NSacrifice and offerin" thou didst not desire# 0ut thou hast prepared a !ody for me. :hole,offerin"s and sin,offerin"s thou didst not deli"ht in. 'hen said: Q?ere am : as it is written of me in the scroll# have come# O &od# to do thy will.P O ?ow do scholars approach this seemin"ly odd mode of expression; 'he writer presents Christ as spea$in" in the present *Nhe saysO+. Fet this spea$in" is Nat his comin" into the world#O which must also !e in the same present. Such actions are placed not in history# !ut in scripture# in whatever the writer re"ards as represented !y the words of the Psalm. Nor does he show any sense of confusion !etween this Ncomin"O and any recent comin" of %esus into the world in an historical sense# at 0ethlehem or on earth "enerally. 0ut confusion amon" commentators a!ounds. ?Krin" *%e!rews# p.4=f+ simply translates the ver! into the past tense# without comment. ?u"h )ontefiore *Epistle to the %e!rews# p.1>>+ su""ests that the comin" into the world refers to ChristPs Nhuman conception or his human !irth#O and that the writer re"ards the Psalm as reportin" %esusP words to the (ather at such a moment. Paul @llin"worth *New +nternational Gree* Testament Commentary# %e!rews# p.=77+ assumes that the writer hears Christ spea$in" throu"h scripture prior to his human incarnation. All this is somethin" that has to !e read into the epistlePs words# for of !irth and incarnation in an historical settin" it has nothin" to say. @llin"worth *p./11+ points to a promisin" interpretation of the Nhe says#O callin" it Na timeless present referrin" to the permanent record of scripture.O :e are s$irtin" Platonic ideas here# with their concept of a hi"her world of timeless reality. :hy not su""est# then# that the writer views scripture as presentin" a picture of spiritual world realities# and it is in this spiritual world that Christ operates; 'he writer of ?e!rews has "one to the sacred writin"s for the story of Christ# the newly revealed NSon.O n that case# the Nhe saysO *here and throu"hout the epistle+ !ecomes a

mythical present# reflectin" the hi"her world of myth# which seems to !e the common universe of so many early Christian writers. n this passa"e# we can see the type of source which could have "iven rise to the idea that the spiritual Son had ta$en on or entered Nflesh#O as well as the idea that he had under"one sacrifice. At first this was envisioned as ta$in" place within the lower celestial realm. (or the writer of ?e!rews# this would have placed the Son Nfor a short while . . . lower than the an"elsO *2:7+. nto this mytholo"ical realm Christ had NcomeO to receive the !ody prepared for him# to provide a new sacrifice and a new covenant to supplant the old one with its animal sacrifices which &od no lon"er wanted. *As we shall see# the writerPs concept of exactly where the divine death itself had ta$en place is somewhat va"ue. nstead# he focuses on ChristPs su!se3uent actions in the heavenly sanctuary# offerin" his !lood to &od in a hi"her world parallel to the earthly sacrificial cult.+

55 II 55
0efore "oin" on to examine how the author of ?e!rews presents the sacrifice of the Son# we should loo$ at a handful of passa"es which could !e said to constitute cryptic references to incidents portrayed in the &ospels. Commentators# in a show of enthusiasm over this# often pronounce ?e!rews to !e the epistle which Nmost displays an interest in the historical %esus.O n fact# these few references can !e shown to !e !ased on readin"s of scripture and can !e placed within the mytholo"ical world to which 11:/ points. n the process# we will also loo$ at a couple of &ospel features which are nota!ly conspicuous !y their a!sence.

-utside the Compound

'he first to consider is 1A:11,1A:
11

'hose animals whose !lood is !rou"ht as a sin,offerin" !y the ?i"h Priest into the sanctuary have their !odies !urnt outside the camp# 12and therefore %esus also suffered outside the "ate# to consecrate the people !y his own !lood. 1A<et us then "o to meet him outside the camp# !earin" the sti"ma that he !ore. 'he first thin" to note is that the name of %erusalem is not used. Only the &ospel story would lead us to identify the authorPs thou"ht a!out a "ate with that city. Nor does the name of Calvary or &ol"otha ever appear. Note# too# that the flan$in" verses a!ove use the word Ncamp.O ?ere we need to loo$ at the &ree$ word Nparem!ole.O t means a fortified military camp# and it is used in @xodus and <eviticus to refer to the sraelite camp in the wilderness of Sinai. ?e!rews# in its presentation of the cultic rituals of sacrifice# seems to have this ancient QhistoricalP settin" in mind rather than any contemporary ?erodian 'emple. 'he present passa"e# then# lies far from the site of %erusalem in the

writerPs mind6 and all of it has the mar$ of sym!olic si"nificance. %esus sufferin" Noutside the "ateO is an element which is dependent# not on some historical record# !ut on the idea in the previous phrase. %esus did this !ecause !odies of sacrificed animals were !urned outside the camp. (or this writer# everythin" to do with Christ and his sacrifice must !e modeled on the sacrificial cultus of the %ewish reli"ion# as descri!ed in scripture. Scripture determines the picture he creates of Christ and his activities in the spiritual world# and if animals were sacrificed outside the !oundaries of the camp at Sinai# then %esus had to under"o the same thin"# in a hi"her world mythic parallel to the earthly copy. 'he idea of Noutside the "ateO also provides a sym!olic parallel to the experiences of the !elievers# as we see !y the succeedin" verse which su""ests that the author saw !oth %esus and his own sect as re5ected outsiders# livin" Q!eyond the paleP with no permanent home. 'his is su""estive of the paradi"matic relationship !etween earthly and heavenly counterparts# as outlined in Article No. 4. 'hus we can discount any necessary reference in this passa"e to %erusalem or an historical event. n any case# we have stron" indication from an earlier passa"e *8:1,A+ that the writer of ?e!rews possesses no concept of %esus ever havin" !een in or near %erusalem. %esus in his role as heavenly ?i"h Priest finds his archetype# his scriptural precedent# in )elchizede$. 'his fi"ure was N$in" of Salem and priest of &od )ost ?i"h#O who is mentioned !riefly in &enesis 1=:14,21. *'here is an even !riefer reference to him in Psalm 111:=.+ n comparin" )elchizede$ to %esus# the writer is anxious to mil$ everythin" he can from this shadowy character6 one who serves the role of prototype for %esus the new ?i"h Priest. And yet he fails to ma$e the o!vious point that )elchizede$ had officiated in the same city where %esus later performed his own act as ?i"h Priest# the sacrifice of himself. 'his is only one of many unthin$a!le omissions in this epistle.
NIn

the &ays of 1is Flesh6

n the last Supplementary Article *No. 4+ descri!ed how the philosophy of the period re"arded the upper spiritual portion of the universe as containin" the primary and ideal counterparts of material world thin"s# "ivin" savior "ods li$e Christ features which sound li$e human attri!utes. Not only could the <ord !e Nsprun" from %udahO *?e!rews 8:1=+ !ecause scripture indicated that this would !e the )essiahPs linea"e *see the discussion in Sprung From Judah in Article No. 4# Christ As .)an.+# !ut he could also !e said to possess the li*eness of NfleshO and N!loodO and to under"o sacrifice. Says 2:1=: NSince *ChristPs children+ have !lood and flesh# he too shared the same thin"s in a li*e manner *the &ree$ word means .similar# near to#. not .identical.+# so that throu"h death he mi"ht !rea$ the power of him who had death at his command.O 'his is a classic expression of the parallel !etween the hi"her world paradi"m and the !elievers lin$ed to him on earth.

f NfleshO could refer to the lower celestial re"ions# or more "enerally to the counterpart spirit world of myth where all the activities of savior "ods and "oddesses too$ place# then ?e!rews /:8 can readily !e placed in such a context: n the days of his flesh *en tais hemerais tes sar*os autou+ he offered up prayers and petitions# with loud cries and tears# to &od who was a!le to deliver him from death *literally# out of death+. 0ecause of his hum!le su!mission his prayer was heard. Scholars re"ularly claim that this passa"e is a reference to an incident in the earthly life of %esus# namely the Passion scene in the &arden of &ethsemane. 0ut is it; Some reco"nize the pro!lems in such an interpretation. At &ethsemane# %esusP an"uished plea that the cup of sufferin" should pass him !y was in fact not answered !y &od# which contradicts the point the writer wishes to ma$e. (rom =:1= on# he is anxious to show that %esus is 3ualified to !e ?i"h Priest for human !ein"s# and one of his tas$s# li$e the earthly hi"h priest# is to petition &od on their !ehalf. 'he reference in /:8 is desi"ned to show that on the latter score %esus has already proven himself. (or Nin the days of his fleshO his prayers to &od on his own !ehalf were answered. Not that the writer of ?e!rews envisions his %esus as havin" successfully avoided death throu"h prayers to &od for such a thin"6 those prayers were rather that %esus !e delivered out of death *that is# !rou"ht up from it: see !elow+ and that he !e perfected throu"h sufferin" and o!edience in order to serve as the source of humanityPs salvation *cf. 2:11+. And in fact# says the writer# this re3uest was "ranted. Any tradition a!out %esus at &ethsemane which !ore a resem!lance to the &ospel account would not fit ?e!rewsP idea here# for the &ospel %esus had prayed# in a moment of human wea$ness# that the cup !e removed. 'his writer would never want to su""est that such a prayer was in any way answered# or was even a worthy one# much less that it made %esus 3ualified to !e the ideal ?i"h Priest. Scholars who s3uarely face this discrepancy usually downplay the lin$ to &ethsemane. 'his does not include )ontefiore *op.cit.# p.78+ who declares that Nthis historical incident evidently made a deep impression upon the author.O So deep# that he can only refer to it cryptically# ma$in" no connection to a specific moment in %esusP earthly life. *:hat would have prevented him from actually sayin" Nin the &ethsemane "ardenO;+ And he misapplies it to the point he is ma$in". :here then did the idea in /:8 come from; n the case of this epistle# we $now the answer !y now: from scripture. &. A. 0uchanan *Anchor 0i!le# %e!rews# p.74+ su""ests that Nofferin" up petitionsO is drawn from Psalm 11>:1# which uses the same words *in the Septua"int version+. And )ontefiore# while fussin" over the fact that it does not appear in the &ospel description# sees the phrase Nloud cries and tearsO as an enlar"ement on Psalm 22:2=: Nwhen cried to him# he heard meO *a"ain in the wordin" of the Septua"int+. 9eflectin" scholarship in "eneral#

@llin"worth *op.cit.# p.24/+ admits that /:8 represents Na "eneralized use of the lan"ua"e and pattern of Old 'estament intercession.O ?e allows that the words do not refer to &ethsemaneDthou"h he considers that they must refer to some historical event. t is clear that the picture of %esusP Ndays in fleshO is !ein" !uilt up throu"h the course of the first century from passa"es in scripture which supposedly supply details of those activities. (or early writers li$e that of ?e!rews# such activities were mythical ones# ta$in" place in the spiritual world of true reality. 'his Qsupernatural incarnationP *usin" PfleidererPs phrase+ is characterized almost universally in early Christian writers !y the word NfleshO *sar$+ in some form or other **ata sar*a# en sar*i# etc.+. :hen it came time to envision the Christ as havin" entered the flesh of the material world# the step was a simple one. * t may have !een one small step for a "od# !ut it was a "iant leap for :estern man$ind.+

(one ,issing! The $ast Supper ; ; ;

0ut these few "leanin"s from ?e!rews which scholars have attempted to lin$ to incidents contained in the &ospels are overshadowed !y two startlin" voids in the thou"ht of this writer. Commentaries never lac$ for expressions of astonishment and a scram!le for explanation on the su!5ect of the @ucharist and the 9esurrection# !oth of which are missin" in this epistle. 'he former at least# should !e a centerpiece. 'he core of ?e!rewsP attention is focused on the concept of sacrifice. 'he %ewish sacrificial cult as expressed in the ritual of the Iay of Atonement and at the inau"uration of the old )osaic covenant is set a"ainst the sacrifice offered up !y the new ?i"h Priest %esus which has esta!lished a new and supersedin" covenant. n the &ospels# %esusP act of institution at the <ast Supper places a sacramental si"nificance on the atonin" sacrifice he is a!out to under"o# and is presented !y %esus himself as the esta!lishment of a new covenant. f such a thin" had existed within the tradition of the author of ?e!rews# there are few statements in the entire field of New 'estament research which could !e made with more confidence than that he would not have failed to !rin" in %esusP esta!lishment of the @ucharist for the closest examination. And yet we read in chapter 7 *1/,22+: And therefore he *Christ+ is the mediator of a new covenant . . . to !rin" deliverance from sins . . . 'he former covenant itself was not inau"urated without !lood. (or when )oses had recited all the commandments to the people# he too$ the !lood of the calves . . . sayin"# N'his is the !lood of the covenant which &od has en5oined upon you.O . . . And without the sheddin" of !lood there is no for"iveness. 'his passa"e cries out for a detailed comparison with the esta!lishment of the

Christian @ucharist at the <ast Supper. 'here %esus inau"urated the new covenant as )oses had the old6 the words of %esus *e.".# )$. 1=:2=: N'his is my !lood of the covenant# shed for manyO+ were spo$en in parallel to )osesP own6 %esusP !lood was shed Nfor the for"iveness of sinsO *)t. 2>:24+# the same purpose for which the <aw of the old covenant had re3uired the sheddin" of !lood. Can there !e any feasi!le explanation for why the author of ?e!rews would i"nore the entire tradition of %esus- esta!lishment of the @ucharist with all these important features Dother than the inescapa!le conclusion that he could have $nown of no such thin"; A"ain# therePs a clincher. t was pointed out a!ove that the writer is ea"er to ta$e as much as he can from the mea"er data availa!le in &enesis and Psalm 111 a!out the fi"ure of )elchizede$# $in" and priest of %erusalem in the time of A!raham. 0ut there is more than the one omission descri!ed earlier in his use of &enesis 1=:14, 21. Berse 14 !e"ins: 'hen )elchizede$ $in" of Salem !rou"ht food and wine . . . A writer whose main occupation is ma$in" parallels !etween his own !rand of Christian theolo"y and its em!odiment in the sacred scriptures# fails to point to )elchizede$Ps Nfood and wineO as a prefi"urin" of the !read and cup of the eucharistic sacrament esta!lished !y %esusM Another unthin$a!le omission. ?ow do scholars deal with ?e!rewsP stunnin" silence on the @ucharist; )ost of them seize on the o!servation that the author# when 3uotin" )oses in chapter 7# has made a Nsu!tle chan"eO of one of the words from @xodus 2=:4# su!stitutin" another which appears in )ar$Ps account of %esusP words at the Supper. * nstead of N0ehold the !lood . . .O he writes: N'his is the !lood . . .O+ 'his -chan"e- is supposed to indicate that the author $new of the Supper scene and had %esusP words in mind# if only su!consciously. ?e can have them sufficiently in mind to alter a word# !ut not sufficiently to "ive us any discussion of the very act and sayin"s of Christ which lie at the core of his new covenant theolo"y. )ontefiore notes *op.cit.# p.1/4+ that the author of ?e!rews Nis not concerned in this epistle with the Christian @ucharist#O which hardly explains the matter nor alleviates the perplexity of it. (ew other features of the documentary record so clearly reveal the fra"mented and uncoordinated nature of the early Christian movement. ?e!rews provides stron" evidence that independent expressions of !elief in the existence of a divine Son and his role in salvation were to !e found all over the landscape of the first century# with no central source or authority and little common sharin" of doctrine and ritual. %ust where the community which produced ?e!rews was located# or the year in which this uni3ue document was written# is impossi!le to tell# !ut that it owed its "enesis to any historical events in %erusalem# or anywhere else# is very difficult to support.

; ; ; and the Empty Tom)

'he second of those startlin" voids in ?e!rews is the a!sence of any concept of a resurrection for Christ# either in flesh or for a period on earth. ?Krin"# in addition to la!elin" the epistle an Neni"maO on this account# o!serves *op.cit.# p.xi+ that the writer seems to have no re"ard for the @aster miracle# since Nevents unroll as thou"h %esus went up to heaven immediately after death#O an idea found in more than one early Christian document. After Nendurin" the crossO *a reference which can easily fit into the mythical settin"# as discussed a!ove+# %esus ta$es his seat at the ri"ht hand of the throne of &od *12:2+. A similar process is descri!ed in 11:12: N0ut Christ offered for all time one sacrifice for sins# and too$ his seat at the ri"ht hand of &od.O 'his mimics the se3uence in 1:A as well# noted a!ove. (inally# in 1A:21# in a passa"e which has in any case !een 3uestioned as authentic to the ori"inal epistle# the writer spea$s a prayer which !e"ins: N)ay the &od of peace# who !rou"ht up from the dead our <ord %esus# the "reat Shepherd of the sheep . . .O ?ere the &ree$ ver! is Nanago#O meanin" to Nlead up#O not the usual word applied in other New 'estament passa"es to the idea of resurrection. Not surprisin"ly# the whole phrase is modeled on an Old 'estament passa"e# saiah >A:11 *Septua"int+: N:here is he that !rou"ht up from the sea the shepherd of the sheep;O Once a"ain# we see that ideas a!out %esus and his activities are derived not from history# !ut from scripture. :. I. Iavies *%e!rews# p.1A8+ would li$e to su""est that N!rou"ht upO includes within itself the idea of !oth resurrection and ascension *includin" the standard =1, day interim# no dou!t+# which is yet another case of solvin" a pro!lem !y lettin" a silence stand for the very thin" which is not in evidence. 0ut it is difficult to !elieve that this writer could have had any concept that %esus had overcome death in some way which would !e meanin"ful to human hopes. n 8:1># the author extols %esus as one who owes his priesthood Nto the power of a life that cannot !e destroyed.O s this founded on %esusP con3uest of death throu"h his resurrection from the tom!; No such idea is hinted at. nstead# the statement is !asedDonce a"ainDon an interpretation of a scriptural passa"e# the one in Psalm 111 which declares: Nthou art a priest forever.O %ames )offat# in his study of ?e!rews *+nternational Critical Commentary# %e!rews# p.xxxviii+# would have us !elieve that the author could not ma$e use of the idea of %esusP resurrection !ecause he was confinin" his ?i"h Priest analo"y to the !i!lical prototype of sacrifice on the Iay of Atonement# and there was no QslotP for itM Can we !elieve that any literary consideration would lead a Christian writer to re5ect the risin" of %esus from his tom! as Qunusa!leP and i"nore it for 1A chapters;

55 III 55 A 1igh Priest in a 1ea*enly Sanctuary

'he picture of Christ in the @pistle to the ?e!rews is unli$e any other in the New 'estament. Scholars have often as$ed themselves what led its author to even thin$ of portrayin" %esus in this manner# as the heavenly ?i"h Priest whose !lood sacrifice# offered in the heavenly sanctuary# is the hi"her world counterpart of the Iay of Atonement sacrifice performed !y the hi"h priest in the sanctuary on earth. t is the more perfect em!odiment of the earthly cult# and it has esta!lished a new covenant which ushers in the final a"e. Nor is this writer some isolated theolo"ian# for !ehind him *as we can see from the epistle+ lies some form of community whose views he is representin" and to whom he is addressin" himself. Of course# scholars as$ this 3uestion within the context of orthodox assumptions. 'hey as$ what led such a "roup to deviate so radically and with such Nfresh creative thin$in"O *)ontefiore# op.cit.# p.7>+ from what must have !een the more standard Christian messa"e a!out %esus# from the theolo"ical and historical picture they must have received throu"h the apostolic channels !y which they were converted. Cast in this way# the 3uestion is indeed a challen"in" and perplexin" one. 0ut in the epistle itself no si"n of such a deviation can !e detected. Such a 3uestion is never addressed. 'he writer and his community seem to move in their own world# a world exclusively dependent on scripture and its interpretation. 'he handful of seemin" allusions to some NearthlyO experience of their divine Christ are# as we have 5ust seen# am!i"uous and cryptic# and can more easily !e explained as proceedin" from scripture than from any traditions of an historical %esus of Nazareth# a fi"ure who is never explicitly mentioned. As noted a!ove# ?e!rews provides perhaps the !est example in the New 'estament of how Christ !elief arose spontaneously out of currents and trends of the day# in independent expressions# each ta$in" on its own characteristics as a result of the local conditions and the people involved. 'he epistle is what it is !ecause a distinct "roup formulated their own picture of spiritual realities. 'hey searched scripture for information and insi"ht a!out the Son of &od# under the influence of the wider reli"ious and philosophical atmosphere of the first century# especially Alexandrian Platonism# and this is what they came up with. 'heir mediator !etween heaven and earth has !een cast in the mold of the %ewish sacrificial cult. 0ut they are not reinterpretin" an apostolic messa"e# they are not "ivin" an a"ainst,the,"rain twist *for reasons which would !e difficult to explain+ to the story of some recent man. No !ow is made in the epistle to any wider Christian movement# nor to any standard from which they are deviatin". 'he sectarian community represented !y

?e!rews is self,sufficient# and it too# li$e all other expressions of Christ !elief of the day# from Paul to the eni"matic %ohannine community# professes its dependence on# and defines its ori"ins in# divine revelation and the sacred writin"s. Nothin" else is in evidence. t is illuminatin" that )ontefiore# in tryin" to answer the 3uestion of why the writer of ?e!rews interpreted %esus in his own peculiar way# instinctively draws on &ospel details. ?e points *op.cit.# p.7/f+ to %esusP words a!out his sacrificial death# his sayin" a!out !uildin" a temple not made with hands# the hi"h priestly prayer 3uoted in %ohn 18. 0ut why is this natural instinct of the post,&ospel Christian exe"ete not mirrored in the document itself; n ?e!rews# there are no sayin"s of %esus 3uoted6 there are no events of his life as recorded in the &ospels which the writer draws on to explain his interpretation of %esus as ?i"h Priest. Not even the central concept of %esusP sacrifice as the esta!lishment of a new covenant has !een illuminated !y the sli"htest reference to the <ast Supper or to the words %esus is said to have spo$en on that occasion inau"uratin" such a covenant. )ontefiore has only succeeded in hi"hli"htin" the perplexin"# maddenin" silence of it all.

A .lood -ffering
'o examine the mythical world of ?e!rews# we will 5ump into the very middle of the epistle and the center of the writerPs thou"ht: the sacrifice of Christ in the heavenly realm as laid out in chapters 4 and 7. 'he structure of this thou"ht is thorou"hly Platonic# thou"h it mirrors some lon"standin" %ewish ideas as well. will 3uote )arcus Iods from his 1711 commentary on ?e!rews in the E$positor7s Gree* Testament *p.281+# for he lays out the Platonic principle very succinctly: .*'he authorPs focus on the QheavenlyP represents+ the contrast of this world and heaven# !etween that of the merely material and transient# and the ideal and a!idin". 'hin"s of this world are material# unreal# transient6 those of heaven are ideal# true# eternal. ?eaven is the world of realities# of thin"s themselves# of which the thin"s here are !ut copies.. One side of this Platonic duality is the earthly sacrificial cult of the 'emple# performed !y the priests. Strictly spea$in"# the author presents it in its pre,'emple settin"# when the early priestly ministry was conducted in a mova!le tent complex durin" the wanderin"s in the wilderness *or so le"end had it+. 'his places him directly in the world of the scriptures# in the company of )oses at the time of the @xodus. 'he day,to,day offerin"s and sacrifices ta$e place in the outer tent# !ut once a year# on the Iay of Atonement# the hi"h priest passes throu"h the curtain which closes off the inner tent# the )ost ?oly Place or sanctuary where stands the ar$ of the covenant *7:=+. On this day# the hi"h priest enters the sanctuary with the !lood of special sacrifices Nwhich he offers on his own !ehalf and for the peoplePs

sins of i"noranceO *7:8+. ?ere is the earthly# transient manifestation: a material sanctuary involvin" "oat and !ull sacrifices of limited efficacy# part of an old covenant which has proven itself faulty *4:4+. And what is the other side of the Platonic e3uation; 'his is Nthe real sanctuary# the tent pitched !y the <ord and not !y manO *4:2+. 'he tent of ChristPs priesthood Nis a "reater and more perfect one# not made !y menPs hands# not part of the created worldO *7:11+. n other words# it lies in the upper world of the real and eternal. ?ere# despite attempts to claim the contrary# there can !e no denyin" that ?e!rewsP thou"ht world is fundamentally Platonic. 'his is a divided# dualistic universe of realms heavenly and earthly# "enuine and imitation. Christ enters Nnot that sanctuary made !y menPs hands which is only a sym!ol of the reality# !ut heaven itselfO *7:2=+. n classic fashion# the upper world contains the Narchetype#O the lower world the NantitypeO or copy. Christ as heavenly ?i"h Priest is infinitely superior to the hi"h priest on earth who officiates in the earthly ta!ernacle. 'he !lood of the sacrifice Christ offers is his own !lood# so much "reater in power than the material !lood of animals that it has Nsecured an eternal deliveranceO *7:12+# a for"iveness of sins which the earthly sacrifices could never achieve. 0ut the writer of ?e!rews should !e facin" a hu"e pro!lem. As a way of "ettin" into this# letPs start !y examinin" a preliminary 3uestion which scholars seem not 3uite sure how to answer. :hat specifically constitutes the NsacrificeO which Christ offers# and where has it ta$en place; 'he QeventP which the writer constantly focuses on seems not to !e ChristPs death itself# !ut his action of enterin" the heavenly sanctuary and offerin" his !lood to &od. 'his is the redemptive action# the offerin" of himself. O!viously# the writer sees thin"s this way !ecause his Platonic philosophy re3uires a parallel to the earthly cult6 in the tent on earth# it is the entry into the inner ta!ernacle and the offerin" there of the !lood of the sacrificed animal which is the determinin" element of the Iay of Atonement rite# not the slau"hter outside which produced the !lood. 'hus the center of "ravity in ?e!rews is the entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary# !rin"in" his own !lood as an offerin" to &od. 'his is what the writer seems to define as the act and location of the Nsacrifice.O Such an ima"e has caused more than one commentator discomfort# for it is faintly distasteful# they have noted# to envision %esus "oin" from Calvary to heaven with his own !lood in tow# and anyway what had he done with it durin" the three days in the tom!; *9emem!er that ?e!rews is canonical and must therefore represent some $ind of divine truth.+ )ontefiore also fusses over the point that %esus shed very little !lood on the cross# apart from the nails to his hands and feetM

Enfortunately for our understandin" of thin"s# all the writer ever refers to is this entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary. ?e never refers to Calvary# to %esusP historical death# as part of the redeemin" action. ?e never itemizes the death as a distinct feature of the sacrifice. *'he passin" reference to Nthe crossO in 12:2 is not in any context of location# sacrifice# redemption or history.+ And yet# the actual Nsheddin" of !loodO is a part of thin"s# for 7:22 says that without it Nthere is no for"iveness.O So it would seem he re"ards the death of %esus *wherever it too$ place+ as part of the heavenly sacrifice# thou"h not part of the most important action inside the sanctuary itself. %ea-enly# !ecause this sacrifice is Nspiritual# eternal and un!lemishedO *7:1=+. @arthly sacrifices cleanse earthly copies# !ut N!etter sacrifices are re3uired to cleanse heavenly thin"sO *7:2A+. n the Platonic thin$in" of the writer such sacrifices# such !lood# can only !e spiritual and eternal. And yet# there should !e his pro!lem. %esusP !lood was neither. ?e had lived on earth# he had !een human in his incarnation# and human !lood# the !lood of matter# coursed in his veins. t was shed on a hill on earth# material# red and stic$y. 'he sacrificeDor at least an essential part of it# a part which the tradition he supposedly received would certainly have re"arded as essentialDtoo$ place in the earthly realm# in the world of the transient# unreal copy of the heavenly. 0ut such an earthly dimension would shatter his Platonic comparison. t would irrepara!ly contaminate the purity of the earth L heaven# hi"h priest L ?i"h Priest contrast on which his whole theolo"y is !ased. 'he sacrifice had not !een confined to the heavenly realm. t had a foot in !oth camps# and thus to some extent the writer would !e comparin" an earthly thin" with another earthly thin". At the very least# he woul# ha-e ha# to a##ress this anomaly. ?e would have had to explain why NhumanO !lood shed on earth could at the same time !e spiritual and cleanse the heavenly sanctuary *7:2A+. ?e would have had to 5ustify why# when every Christian circle around him *presuma!ly+ thou"ht of ChristPs sacrifice in terms of its occurrence on Calvary# he has i"nored such a venue and placed it in heaven. ?e would have had to 3ualify his Platonic picture. Of course# he does not. ?e shows no si"n of !ein" pertur!ed !y any conflict in his theoretical universe. nstead# the picture is uniform !ecause the author has extrapolated earthly fi"ures and activities *the %ewish sacrificial cultus+ into a heavenly em!odiment which is the perfect archetype of the lower world copy. And he has supported it !y a Platonic readin" of scripture# which he re"ards as a picture of the hi"her world of true realities where Christ operates. 'here is no historical %esus# no sacrifice on an earthly Calvary# lur$in" in the !ac$"round to distur! this finely drawn duality.

Pro)lematic Solutions
t is astonishin" that so few scholars show any awareness of the a!ove conundrum# even as they reco"nize the spiritual# Platonic nature of ?e!rewsP thou"ht world.

)offat can say *+nternational Critical Commentary# %e!rews# p.xlii+: N(or the complete sacrifice has !een offered in the realm of the spirit.O ?e remar$s on 7:1= *p.xliii+ that the sacrifice of Christ Nhad !een offered in the spirit andDas we mi"ht sayDin the eternal order of thin"s . . . it !elon"ed essentially to the hi"her order of a!solute reality.O Iods# analyzin" the same passa"e *op.cit.# p.AA2+# declares that ChristPs ministry has a "reater efficacy !ecause it has !een Nexercised in a more perfect ta!ernacle and with a truer sacrifice.O n other words# they reco"nize %esusP sacrifice as an event which in some way ta$es place in the world of Platonic,type myth# in the hi"her world of the spirit. Nor is any of this declared to !e metaphorical. A few more recent scholars have played down the Platonic nature of the writerPs thou"ht *such as @llin"worth in the New +nternational Gree* Testament+# no dou!t sensin" the pro!lem it creates. 0ut that a document which inha!its an Alexandrian, style milieu would nevertheless not em!ody the fundamental principles of )iddle Platonism is impossi!le. Older scholars such as Iods and )offat had no such dou!ts. Such o!servations as )offatPs do the mythicistsP wor$ for them. 'hey show that it is possi!le even for orthodox scholars to reco"nize the mythical realm and to envision the sacrifice of Christ within it. Of course# there is the inevita!le attempt to compromise# to introduce an historical %esus into the Platonic e3uation. ?ere is some of what )offat has to say *p.xliii+: .'he writer !reathed the Philonic atmosphere *of )iddle Platonism+ in which the eternal Now overshadowed the thin"s of space and time# !ut he $new this sacrifice had ta$en place on the cross# and his pro!lem was one which never confronted Philo# the pro!lem which we moderns have to face in the 3uestion: ?ow can a sin"le historical fact possess a timeless si"nificance;. :ell# the writer of ?e!rews never "ives any indication that Nhe $newO of such an earthly sacrifice# nor that he faced a pro!lem which Philo did not. ?e!rews never as$s or addresses )offatPs 3uestion# or other Npro!lemsO li$e it. ?e in fact follows directly on PhiloPs way of thin$in"# for Philo also referred to the <o"os as ?i"h Priest# also envisioned the activities of this ?i"h Priest *thou"h they were not sacrificial+ as confined to the Nintelli"i!le worldO of hi"her realities. 'he @pistle to the ?e!rews inha!its the same conceptual universe# and if the writer had deviated so far from its spirit as to confer all this Platonic thin$in" on an historical# earthly man# he could not have failed to address such a radical innovation. Nor does the writer of ?e!rews support 0uchananPs attempt *op.cit.# p.xxv+ to "et around the epistlePs Platonic pattern. 0uchanan declares that the relationship !etween heavenly prototypes and earthly antitypes is Nunderstood in terms of historical se3uence and faith that is forei"n to Platonism.O 0ut the epistle itself shows no such understandin". t is true that in re"ular %ewish !i!lical exe"esis#

prototypes in scripture could !e seen as anticipatin" later antitypes Nthat were also historical and earthly.O 0ut this is clearly not the course followed !y this epistle# which focuses all its attention on the wor$ of Christ in the heavenly world. t never !ends its Platonic principles to accommodate an Nhistorical se3uenceO or an earthly sacrifice. Once a"ain a scholar# under the influence of preconception# has chosen to read into a document ideas which are not presented !y the document itself. )ontefiore *op.cit.# p.1AAf+ "oes so far as to say that the author intended no thou"ht of a sacrifice in heaven at all. 9ather# the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary was simply one of intercession with &od on humanityPs !ehalf. All the tal$ of enterin" the sanctuary with his !lood and offerin" it there is# as it were# metaphorical and refers !ac$ to Calvary where the actual sacrifice and offerin" had ta$en place. n discussin" this point# )ontefiore writes the word NCalvaryO three times in the space of one pa"e *1A=,/+# yet he seems not to wonder how the writer could !e presentin" such a metaphorical meanin" and not li$ewise !e forced to refer to the scene of %esusP death and the fact that it had ta$en place on earth. ?e also ar"ues that !lood could not !e offered in heaven !ecause Nheaven is the sphere not of flesh and !lood !ut of ultimate reality.O 0ut what is this ultimate reality if not the more perfect forms of the earthly copies; 0y lettin" his &ospel preconceptions "overn his whole interpretation of the text# !y dismissin" any concept of spiritual !loodD!lood which could !e carried into a heavenly sanctuaryD)ontefiore has castrated the epistlePs thou"ht and rendered meanin"less the whole Platonic structure the author has carefully put to"ether. ?e has left him comparin" an earthly cult with an earthly sacrifice. 'hat sacrifices could !e offered in heaven is also shown !y the 'estament of <evi# third part of the 'estament of the 'welve Patriarchs# a %ewish document *from pro!a!ly a little earlier time+ with certain amendments which scholars la!el NChristian.O n chapter A# sacrifices are depicted as !ein" offered to &od in a heavenly temple !y an"els of the third heaven. n this multi,layered universe# the third heaven contains an archetypal sanctuary whose copy is the earthly temple. ?ere the archan"els Noffer propitiatory sacrifices to the <ord in !ehalf of all the sins of i"norance of the ri"hteous onesO *as in the earthly rite on the Iay of Atonement+. N'hey present to the <ord a pleasin" odor.O Such sacrifices are declared to !e N!loodless#O althou"h sacrifices in heaven involvin" !lood are to !e found in later Ca!!alistic thin$in".

Searching For 1istorical E*ents

Can we confidently maintain that for the writer of ?e!rews ChristPs sacrifice was in no way Na sin"le historical fact#O as )offat puts it6 somethin" which had ta$en place on earth in his own time; <etPs loo$ at a few specific thin"s the epistle says. %ust as Paul in &alatians A viewed the <aw as a temporary measure until the

comin" of the present time of salvation throu"h faith# the writer of ?e!rews does somethin" similar in 7:4,11. ?e sees the outer tent of the earthly sanctuary as sym!olizin" the old way# the old type of sacrifice. 'hrou"hout history# it has o!scured the si"ht of the inner tent which sym!olized the new way which was comin"# the priesthood of Christ and his eternal sacrifice. Now this new way has !een revealedDthrou"h the communityPs own readin" of scripture and its conviction of inspiration. 'he outer# imperfect tent with its old# imperfect sacrifices has !een removed# swept away. 'his idea# !y the way# places the "roup which produced the epistle within a lar"er# diverse movement that re5ected or aimed at reformin" the 'emple cult# a si"nificant stream of thou"ht within the wider %udaism of the first century. t is also an ar"ument for placin" the writin" of the epistle !efore the destruction of the 'emple# when such "oals would have !ecome moot. ?ow does the author descri!e the present time# when the new way has !een revealed; ?e calls it a Ntime of reformation#O of NamendmentO *7:11+# not the time of ChristPs ministry or sacrifice. 'he entire epistle is concerned with &odPs revelation in scripture and the inau"uratin" of the new covenant. t !e"an with the declaration that in this final a"e &od has spo$en to the world throu"h the Son# !ut this is a Son# as we have seen# who spea$s only in the sacred writin"s. n 7:11 the author says that NChrist has come#O !ut is this a reference to his life on earth; 9ather# the context indicates that he is referrin" to ChristPs NentryO into the new tent of his heavenly priesthood# the spiritual sanctuary. *@llin"worth supports this.+ ?e stresses that this tent is Nnot of this created world#O *a point which 0uchanan seems to have i"nored+. 'his Christian writer can spea$ of ChristPs Ncomin"O and yet say not a word a!out any of his wor$ on earth# only of what he did in heaven. Clearly# such a Ncomin"O of Christ is entirely in terms of his spiritual world activities# as revealed in scripture. n the !roader sense# it could also entail the thou"ht of his comin" to the !elievin" community throu"h the revelation a!out him# an idea found in other epistles as well. n 7:1/ the author spea$s of the death of Christ# ma$in" the point that the new covenant# li$e all testaments# can only ta$e effect after the testatorPs death. 0ut he does not specify when or where this death occurred. 'he actual death of %esus remains a "limmer on the ed"es of the sacrifice. ts most si"nificant mention comes in 2:7# where it characterizes %esus as a heavenly paradi"m: Ncrowned with "lory and honor !ecause he suffered death#O and Nin tastin" death he should stand for us all.O 'his passa"e is reminiscent of the christolo"ical hymn in Philippians# su""estin" an entirely mythical settin". A resurrection for Christ# as outlined a!ove# rates scarcely a mention# and in any case plays no role in redemption. 'he idea of a resurrection in the &ospel sense is completely missin" in this epistle.

A Sacrifice 5-nce For All6

n 7:2=f# the writer spea$s a"ain of ChristPs entry into the heavenly sanctuary# and here he uses a favorite word# NonceO *hapa$# ephapa$+# a concept which he applies to ChristPs sacrifice *as also in 7:12+. 0ut what is it that has happened NonceO; :e need to loo$ at the extended passa"e# a very revealin" one *here sli"htly altered from the N@0+: *2=+ (or Christ has entered . . . heaven itself to appear Gthe ver! emphaini(oH now !efore &od on our !ehalf. *2/+ Nor is he there to offer himself a"ain and a"ain# as the hi"h priest enters the sanctuary year !y year with !lood not his own. *2>a+ f this were so# he would have needed to suffer many times since the foundation of the world. *2>!+ 0ut as it is# he has appeared Gthe ver! phanerooH once for all *hapa$+ at the completion of the a"es to a!olish sin !y his sacrifice. 'he most important thin" to realize is that the act of Nappearin"O throu"hout these verses relates to one thin": %esusP sacrifice# which is synonymous with his entry into the heavenly sanctuary to ma$e his offerin" to &od. 'he Nappearin"O in verse 2>! is not some sudden shift to a "eneral reference to ChristPs !irth or life on earth# somethin" which is never even touched on when discussin" the sacrifice. 'he Nappearin" to a!olish sinO of this latter verse is in the same cate"ory as the Nappearin" !efore &odO of the earlier verse 2=. All of it ta$es place in heaven. t is true that those two Nappearin"sO do not use the same ver!# !ut @llin"worth points out *op.cit.# p.=41+ that Nthere is no sharp distinction or contrast in ?e!rews !etween emphaini(o *verse 2=+ and phaneroo *verse 2>!+.O Some scholars *e.".# %. Swetnam# %e!rews# p.2AA+ reco"nize that the idea of Nappearin"O in verse 2>! is focused specifically on the sacrifice# and this# as we have seen# the author nowhere ma$es a point of locatin" on earth. 0ut what of that unusual feature# the use of the word hapa$ *NonceO+# which is a deviation from strict Platonic thin$in"; 'he author has defined this entry into the heavenly sanctuary# not in the way the later Sallustius re"arded the myths of the savior "ods# as somethin" which Nalways is so#O not somethin" timeless and constant# !ut as a spiritual event of a sin"ular nature# somethin" done Nonce.O And he seems to locate this event in the present# Nat the completion of the a"es.O :hy does he do this; Perhaps most importantly# the NonceO ma$es %esusP ministry superior to the sacrificial cult on earth# in which the hi"h priest must renew the Iay of Atonement sacrifice year after year6 Christ# on the other hand# had only to perform it Nonce for all.O 'he writerPs theolo"ical needs# to esta!lish the superiority and perfection of the heavenly side of the e3uation# may well have determined this aspect to his thin$in". ?e may also have tied the spiritual event of ChristPs sacrifice with the present time and re"arded it as NonceO !ecause it is now and only now that the revelation a!out

Christ and his sacrifice has !een made. 'he event is spo$en of as Noccurrin"O at the time of its revelation# at the time when it ta$es effect. n fact# the choice of the ver! phanerooDa NrevelationO wordDin verse 2>! may !e influenced !y this# reflectin" the idea of the present,day manifestation of Christ to the world. 'his is further indicated !y the use of the perfect tense which focuses on present effects rather than on an historical happenin". 0ut we can "o further. 'hat the writer does not have any earthly event in mind in this entire passa"e is indicated !y a verse comin" shortly after the 7:2=,2> 3uoted a!ove. 24a is a virtual restatement of 2>!: NSo Christ was offered once to remove menPs sins. . .O 'his removal or a!olition of sin# spotli"hted in !oth 2>! and 24a# is tied in the former to the act of sacrifice and in the latter to the act of offerin". 0ut these are synonymous# for the act of offerin" is the act of sacrifice. And this act# as we have seen# is always presented as the entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary carryin" his sacrificial !lood. 'hus the reference to Nappearin"O at the completion of the a"es *in 2>!+ is a reference to the hea-enly event. Nowhere is anythin" earthly in view. Other passa"es# such as 8:28 and 11:11# also associate the Nonce for allO idea with the act of Nofferin"O which is located in the heavenly realm. 'he epistle consistently portrays a spiritual act ta$in" place in the spiritual world. :e can conclude# therefore# that no earthly life or event is implied !y anythin" the writer says# and that the @pistle to the ?e!rews $nows of no historical %esus.

Standing on ,ount <ion

Such a conclusion is clinched !y the epistlePs climax in chapter 12# a final peroration in which the writer ur"es steadfastness on his readers and "ives dire warnin" a"ainst apostasy. N9emem!er where you standMO he cries *12:14+# first callin" to their minds the scene of the "rantin" of the old covenant# !efore the !lazin" fire of )ount Sinai where a cowerin" )oses heard the oracular voice of &od. :hen he turns to the scene of the new covenant# where does he place his readersP vision; Are they invited to stand upon the mount of Calvary; 0eneath the cross where %esus of Nazareth han"s; Perhaps in front of the empty tom!; No# where )t. Sinai sym!olized the old covenant# it is )t. SionDstill a scriptural motifDwhich for this writer sym!olizes the new. On )t. Sion# !efore the heavenly %erusalem# the scene is one of an"els# &od the 5ud"e of all# and %esus the mediator of the new covenant. 0ut when the writer en5oins his readers *v.2/+ to Nsee that you do not refuse to hear the voice that spea$s#O we hear no voice of %esus. nstead it is &od himself who spea$s# throu"h one of his scriptural prophets. ?ow is it possi!le# in providin" a new,covenant counterpart to the voice of )oses and the divine oracles on Sinai# that a Christian

writer would not offer the voice of %esus: the Son of &od himself when recently on earth# teachin"# enli"htenin"# admonishin"# !rin"in" a new <aw# even spea$in" from the cross; n the &ospels# the concept of understandin" and heedin" the thin"s which %esus spo$e is a ma5or theme. 'he phrase on %esusP lips# N?e who hears my words#O is a recurrin" motif. Scholars should weep !efore the total i"norance# the complete disinterest# indeed the sheer disdain which writers li$e that of ?e!rews seem to show toward the voice and persona of %esus of Nazareth. ?ow li$ely is it that a %ewish,Christian writer# presuma!ly converted !y a response to the fi"ure of this human %esus into a faith which his whole herita"e would have re"arded as !lasphemous# how li$ely is it that he would choose to i"nore the entire earthly record of this very fi"ure; :hat personal disposition would lead him to exclude from his presentation all the motifs of his new faith# to draw inspiration and illustration from ancient writin"s which were only a prophecy of the real thin"; :hy# for virtually all the first century Christian letter writers# was it dusty passa"es from the Prophets and Psalmists which inspired their christolo"ies# their elo3uence# their poetic ima"ery# and not the vi!rant words and ima"es of the recent incarnation of the Son of &od which should have !een han"in" in the very air of their daily lives; No strin" of unli$ely ar"umentation such as scholarship re"ularly indul"es in can !e 5ud"ed ade3uate in the face of the overall stultifyin" silence on %esus of Nazareth found in the New 'estament epistles# no defense even distantly sufficient for the utter void in the early Christian writin"s which should !e filled !y the &ospel %esus. 'he ar"ument from silenceDa silence as pervasive and as irrational as this one isDmust !e considered fully vindicated.

Epi,o02e( A Pai% of S9o3i 0 G2 &

0ut there are two passa"es in ?e!rews which spell out for us the fact that this writer $nows of no %esus of Nazareth# no Son incarnated to earth. One involves an ancient scriptural prophecy# the other a feature of the comparison !etween heavenly and earthly activities of the old and new priesthoods.

A First or Second Coming"

'he "reat Iay of the <ord in %ewish prophecy and expectation was turned !y certain early Christian preachin" into the comin" of %esus# the spiritual Christ. *0ut not all: some epistles# such as %ames and 1 %ohn# as well as the Iidache# retain the idea of the arrival of &od himself# with no sense of a Parousia of Christ.+ 0ut it is the @pistle to the ?e!rews which contains the most fascinatin" passa"e on this su!5ect. 11:A8 reads: (or soon# very soon *in the words of Scripture+# Nhe who is to come Gho

erchomenosH will come and will not delay.O *N@0+ 'his is from the Septua"int version of ?a!a$$u$ 2:A. 'he prophet was referrin" to &od himself# !ut !y the !e"innin" of the Christian period# this was one of many !i!lical passa"es that were !ein" reinterpreted as referrin" to the )essiah. 'he &ree$ participle erchomenos# which the Septua"int here uses# !ecame a virtual title# used with a masculine article: Nthe Comin" One#O and referred to the expected savior fi"ure who would arrive at the @nd,time. 'his is clearly how ?e!rews is usin" it. 0ut stop and thin$ a moment. 'he writer is affirmin" his !elief that Nthe Comin" One will come# and soon#O for so the prophet has promised. s he referrin" to the &ospel %esus and his supposed Second Comin" in "lory; t is certainly the comin" in "lory at the @nd,time that he has in mind# !ut how can this !e a secon# comin"# for the writer has made no room for a previous one. f the prophet had prophesied ChristPs comin"# this would have !een earlier fulfilled in his incarnation# when he came to earth as %esus of Nazareth. 'his in fact is how Christians later interpreted all those prophetic passa"es a!out the )essiah: they referred to ChristPs life on earth. 0ut the writer of ?e!rews ma$es no allowance for such a thin". @ven if he wishes to apply ?a!a$$u$Ps words to the Parousia of %esus instead of the incarnation# he needs at least to ma$e some reference to that earlier comin"# if only to avoid confusion. Fet he does not. ?is silence plainly shows that for him ChristPs comin" is still to !e# that he has no concept of him already havin" !een here. As 11:A8 expresses itself# the scriptural promise of ChristPs arrival has not yet !een fulfilled. 0ut there are those who will protest# pointin" to an earlier passa"e. ?ere is how the N@0 translates ?e!rews 7:28,24: *28+ And as it is the lot of men to die once# and after death comes 5ud"ment# *24+ so Christ was offered once to !ear the !urden of menPs sins# and will appear Gliterally# he will !e seen# or will reveal himselfH a second time Ge* #euterouH# sin done away# to !rin" salvation to those who are watchin" for him. Scholars claim that here at leastDand they are willin" to allow that it is only here in the entire corpus of New 'estament epistlesDa Christian writer clearly refers to the @nd,time comin" of %esus# the Parousia# as a secon# comin". 0ut is there such a reference even here; 'he a!ove analysis of 11:A8 would su""est there is not. 0ut we can contest it on the !asis of 7:28,24 alone. f the Ne* #euterouO means a second time# the parallel with verse 28 is destroyed. Berse 28 is sayin" that Nfirst men die# and after that *or QnextP+ they are 5ud"ed.O 'here is no sense here of a Nsecond timeO for anythin"6 the writer is simply offerin" us a se3uence of events: death# followed !y 5ud"ment. Ioes this not imply that verse 24 is offerin" a se3uence as well; NChrist was

offered once# and after that *next+ he will appear to !rin" salvation.O 'he idea of appearin" Na second timeO would !e intrusive here. Since the writer is clearly presentin" his readers with some $ind of parallel !etween verses 28 and 24 *note also the NonceO in !oth parts+# it seems unli$ely he would introduce an element which doesnPt fit the parallel# especially one he doesnPt need. NE* #euterouO can have the alternate meanin" of NsecondlyO or Nnext in se3uence#O li$e the similar word #euteron# which appears in this sense in 1 Corinthians 12:24. %ust as menPs death is followed !y 5ud"ment# so is ChristPs sacrifice followed !y his appearance# !ut with no indication of how lon" a time !etween the two. 0efore the turn of the century# Bau"han *3uoted in The E$positor7s Gree* Testament# vol.=# p.A=1+ translated verse 24 this way: NChrist died once and the next thin" !efore him is the Advent.O 'hus even in ?e!rews it would seem that we have no Second Comin" of Christ.

9o Footstep 1eard
(inally# there is a startlin" statement made in chapter 4# one which most commentators mana"e to "loss over or i"nore completely. 'he writer is spea$in" of %esusP ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and !e"ins to compare him to the earthly hi"h priest. At verse =# he says: Now# if he had !een on earth# he would not even have !een a priest . . . No matter how one tries to detect a feasi!le 3ualification to this phrase# there is no denyin" that the writer seems to !e sayin" that %esus was never on earth. 'he &ree$ is Nei men oun en epi ges#O which is literally: NNow# if accordin"ly he were on earth . . .O 'he ver! en is the imperfect# which is strictly spea$in" a past tense# and the N@0 *a!ove+ chooses to reflect this. 0ut the meanin" within the context is pro!a!ly present# or at least temporally am!i"uous# much li$e the conditional sense in which most other translations render it: NNow if he were on earth *meanin" at this time+# he would not !e a priest.O ?owever# the writer has 3ualified this statement in no way whatever. ?e does not say# if he were now on earth *instead of earlier+# if he returned to earth# if he were still on earth6 not even: N:hile he was on earth# he was not a priest . . .O 'he writer says nothin" which shows any co"nizance of the fact that %esus ha# !een on earth# recently# that it was on earth where an important part of his sacrifice# the sheddin" of his !lood# had occurred. * n contrast to scholars# who re"ularly feel constrained to point this out.+ 'he point he is ma$in" in this verse is that %esus on earth would have nothin" to do# since there are already earthly priests performin" the duties which the <aw prescri!es# and they do so Nin a sanctuary which is only a copy and shadow of the heavenlyO *4:/+. Fet how could any writer say that %esus would have nothin" to do on earth when he did# in fact# have so much to do; ?ow could he imply that earth

is the scene only of human duties in a human sanctuary when here was where %esus had performed his sacrifice# shed his !loodDon a hill called Calvary outside %erusalem; Surely no writer could express himself this way without at least a 3ualification# somethin" which would "ive a nod to %esusP recent presence in the physical arena. *Of course# such a life and death on earth# as noted earlier# would have thrown a mon$eywrench into his carefully crafted Platonic picture.+ @llin"worth has "limpsed the ed"e of the a!yss# and hastily drawn !ac$. n analyzin" this passa"e *op cit.# p.=1/+# he 3uestions the normal interpretation of the imperfect en# and with it the N@0 translation *which he admits Nis "rammatically possi!leO+# !ecause it Ncould !e misunderstood as meanin" that %esus had never Q!een on earthP.O ?e claims that this N"oes a"ainst the contextOD which is to say the common assumption over the last 17 centuries that an historical %esus existed# one who had in fact !een on earth. n the face of the overwhelmin" evidence which ?e!rews alone provides# it is time to 3uestion that very assumption# rather than try to re5ect the natural meanin" of an innocent ver!.
N%esus Christ is the same yesterday# today and forever#O the author intones in 1A:4.

Could a divine Son# pre,existent in heaven !efore his incarnation# who was !orn fully human in 0ethlehem in the days of ?erod the &reat# who "rew up and ministered in &alilee# was slain in %erusalem and rose !odily from the dead to return to heavenDcould he !e spo$en of in this fashion; 0ut of a mythical Christ who operated entirely in the spiritual sphere# in a timeless# Platonic existence# one who had never !een to earth and was $nown only !y divine revelation from the pa"es of scripture# such an affirmation would !e perfectly apt.

Supplementary Article No. 11

JOSEPHUS UN/OUND
Reope i 0 the Jo&eph2& :2e&tio I( PREA./LE Contrasting Worlds
+n an alternate uni-erse to this one# scholars investi"atin" ChristianityPs ori"ins are a happy lot. 'here# the man whom 2111 years of Christian tradition places at the "enesis of the movement en5oys ample attestation. 'here# the five canonical &ospels may !e filled with much le"endary and theolo"ical accretion# and the indefati"a!le Paulus may have !een "uilty of !rin"in" too much hellenistic hocus, pocus to his interpretation of %esus of Nazareth# !ut the assortment of Christian correspondence preserved from the movementPs first century is filled with teachin"s attri!uted to the !eloved )aster# with cherished memories of the events

of his life and death. 'here# letters written !y early !elievers spea$ of reverent visits to the site of %esusP redeemin" sacrifice# of pil"rima"es to the tom! where he rose from the dead# even if these had to !e carried out in clandestine fashion. n that alternate world# early Christian letter writers also have the occasional word to say a!out the 9oman "overnor who was responsi!le for their <ordPs crucifixion# a!out the privile"ed and respected %ewish mother of their incarnated Son of &od# a!out the ascetic prophet who had preceded him and even !aptized him# so tradition had it. And the relations !etween those many apostles of the Christ# who discuss and ar"ue and vilify across the pa"es of the early Christian epistles# are characterized !y re"ular claims and counterclaims a!out the authority %esus had !estowed upon them while on earth# or the channels throu"h which they could trace their credentials and their doctrines !ac$ to the man himself who had set everythin" in motion. :hen scholars in that alternate universe step outside the writin"s of the Christian movement itself# they find that widespread notice was ta$en of the new faith and its founder !y the contemporary world. 'he Alexandrian philosopher Philo had mentioned his death under Pilate in spea$in" of the 9oman "overnorPs reprehensi!le career in %udea. Pliny the @lder# who collected all manner of natural and unnatural phenomena associated with famous fi"ures and sects# had recorded certain traditionsDpro!a!ly apocryphal# !ut no matterDa!out astronomical portents which Christians said had accompanied their founderPs !irth# as well as an amazin" reaction of nature reputed to have ta$en place at the time of his death. 'his chroniclerPs nephew# Pliny the Foun"er# had related Christian tales a!out the man and his exploits in his letter to the emperor. And other assorted commentators of the time had "iven passin" mention or even a few valua!le details a!out the man of Nazareth and the impact he had made# !oth amon" his many followers and throu"hout contemporary society as the new sect spread and made its presence felt. @ven in that contented place# however# there is the occasional stic$in" point. 'he wor$s of the foremost %ewish historian of the time# (lavius %osephus# happen to contain two references to thin"s Christian which are in dispute# since one as it stands is o!viously a Christian composition# and the other possesses certain pro!lematic aspects. Scholars there are faced with the 3uestion of whether in fact this particular historian did record anythin" a!out the Christian movement and its founder# or perhaps was even unfamiliar with him# thou"h this they re"ard as unli$ely in view of the clear and widespread witness "iven to %esus in many other contemporary records. :ord has it that one scholar in that alternate world went so far as to raise the possi!ility that# in view of the uncertainty in the %osephan record# the founder of Christianity may not have existed# !ut he was promptly carted off to an institution where they have effective treatments for such delusionary manifestations.

; n a different universe to that one# scholars are not so fortunate# or so happy. 'here# the canonical &ospels are also seen as possessin" 3uestiona!le historical relia!ility# !uilt as they are on midrashic principles which seem to draw entirely on scriptural precedent. n that world# however# scholars cannot turn to the early Christian record outside the &ospels for information on %esus of Nazareth# for stran"ely enou"h it contains virtually nothin" a!out the reputed human founder of Christianity. n the New 'estament epistles they can discover no attri!ution of earthly teachin"s to him# no miracle wor$in"# no details of his life and death. 'he places of his career are never mentioned# let alone visited6 the fi"ures populatin" the &ospel story seem un$nown. 9ival apostles of the Christ preach and de!ate and express themselves without any appeal to an earthly %esus# and spea$ of the !e"innin" of their movement and their $nowled"e of the Son of &od they worship in terms of revelation and inspiration from scripture# with &od himself as the source of their ethic and impulse. 'heir Christ is a cosmic redeemer unlin$ed to a recent historical man# one who !ears uncanny resem!lance to a raft of mythical savior "ods of the time. :ithin the non,Christian record# the silence on any human founder of Christianity echoes forlornly for almost the first hundred years of the movement. :ith one exception. n that world too# the %ewish historian (lavius %osephus exhi!its two contentious passa"es referrin" to a human %esus. One is a Christian composition as it now stands# and the other is pro!lematic in certain respects. Iid this (lavius %osephus really record anythin" a!out the Christian founder; :as he perhaps unfamiliar with him; 'he difference !etween this universe and the other one is that here much more han"s in the !alance. (or in the a!sence of any other supportin" evidence from the first century that in fact the %esus of Nazareth portrayed in the &ospels clearly existed# %osephus !ecomes the slender thread !y which such an assumption han"s. And the sound and fury and desperate maneuverin"s which surround the dissection of those two little passa"es !ecomes a din of astonishin" proportions. A!out the only advanta"e which scholars in this universe en5oy over their counterparts in the other# is that dissenters to the accepted picture of ChristianityPs ori"ins are here somewhat more numerous and are a!le to resist commitment to curative asylums.

Setting the Parameters

'he second# unfortunate# universe is of course our own# and thin$ it is not too difficult to understand why %osephus has !ecome such a flash point in the "reat de!ate over the existence of any historical %esus. And yet# he shouldnPt !e# for two very "ood reasons. 'he very fact that so much !itter de!ate has ta$en place for so lon"# so much in$ spilled# over those two contentious passa"es# shows how difficult if not impossi!le it has !een to settle the matter conclusively# as to what#

if anythin"# %osephus actually said a!out a Christian founder %esus. 'he second reason should !e e3ually o!vious. 'he o!sessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated !y the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal# so contrary to the orthodox picture. f almost everythin" outside %osephus points in a different direction# to the essential fiction of the &ospel picture and its central fi"ure# how can %osephus !e made to !ear on his shoulders# through two passages whose relia!ility has thus far remaine# unsettle## the counterwei"ht to all this other ne"ative evidence; will ma$e clear at the outset what for me is the overridin" principle in this de!ate. As those who have investi"ated my site will $now# have claimed that an analysis of the non,&ospel record# Christian and non,Christian# !oth in terms of the ne"ative *the silences found therein+ and the positive *what early writers specifically say a!out their Christ and faith movement+# when separate# from Gospel preconceptions# stron"ly supports the validity of dou!tin" the existence of any historical %esus. f this !e the case# then all that would have to !e done where %osephus is concerned is to demonstrate the inconclusi-eness of his passa"es a!out %esus# to show that their relia!ility cannot !e certain# or even made pro!a!le. f the Qnon, existenceP side of the scale in the historical %esus de!ate is so wei"hted down with supportin" indications# then anythin" short of a fairly conclusive demonstration that %osephus is relia!le cannot serve to counter!alance that wei"ht# much less QproveP the existence of an historical %esus. 'his seems a permissi!le and lo"ical position to ta$e. 'hat said# however# am "oin" to su""est that in this article will offer# alon" with some fresh ar"uin" of familiar positions# several new analyses and ar"uments which are nothing short of fatal to the currently complacent view that the %osephan passa"es# even in a core fashion# are essentially relia!le and can !e used to support the contention that %esus existed. n historical investi"ation few thin"s# if any# are Nproven.O 9ather# we try to arrive at pro!a!ilities !ased on the wei"ht of evidence# usually !y examinin" the documentary *or archaeolo"ical+ record and su!5ectin" it to various forms of reasonin". ndeed# the re"ular de!ate on %osephus is full of ar"uments which loo$ at the text# consider certain factors in relation to it# and commend a conclusion to the o!server. N t ma$es sense that . . .O or N t is unli$ely that . . .O is a common approach in presentin" onePs position. f as a mythicist can demonstrate that my ar"uments for %osephusP unrelia!ility can stand with e3ual or !etter force !eside those of my opponents# or if can demonstrate the wea$ness or invalidity of those opposin" ar"uments# have accomplished my tas$. 'hat tas$ is to remove the force of the two Antiquities passa"es as an impediment to the mythicist position# which is !ased on an analysis of the documents which really matter: the Christian

documentary record itself# in the epistles which demonstrate what early Christianity was in fact a!out# and the &ospels as they can !e demonstrated not to constitute wor$s of history. )any professional scholars in !oo$s and commentaries have addressed the %osephus 3uestion# !ut it is also a favorite topic amon" researchers on the nternet. 'he most extensive discussion in this cate"ory which am aware of is !y Peter Cir!y on his @arly Christian :ritin"s we! site *E9<Llin$ at end+# who supports the !asic relia!ility of %osephus as a witness to the historical %esus6 and althou"h will refer to others alon" the way who have tac$led the 3uestion# will use his essay as a "eneral "uide for my own remar$sDespecially as he has ur"ed me to do so. ; %ere is an o-er-iew +n#e$ of the num!ere# hea#ings in the te$t' with lin*s to each: II( Je&2& i A ti<2itie& of the Je8& +=
T 1. )anuscript Attestation: A!sence of textual variation irrelevant T 2. Iid %osephus identify %ames !y the N!rother of %esusO reference; T A. :hat did %osephus $now# or choose to say# a!out %ames; T =. :ould %osephus have identified %esus !y Nthe one called *the+ ChristO; T /. :as the reference to %esus a mar"inal "loss; T >. Iid %osephus refer to %ames as N!rother of the <ordO; T 8. 'he N<ost 9eferenceO: %ames as the cause of the fall of %erusalem T 4. :hat was the source of the lost reference idea *the %ames,%erusalem lin$+; T 7. Iid Christians ori"inate the %ames,%erusalem lin$; T 11. Could %osephus have written the %ames,%erusalem lin$; T 11. :as there a dual interpolation of the N!rother of %esusO reference; T 12. <osin" the lost reference T Summary of ar"uments for Anti3uities 21

III( Je&2& i A ti<2itie& of the Je8& $>

T 1A. %osephan phrases and voca!ulary in the 'estimonium (lavianum T 1=. 'he short extent of the 'estimonium T 1/. nterruptin" contexts irrelevant T 1>. :hat did %osephus $now a!out Christianity;

T 18. Silence on the 'estimonium !y the Church (athers T 14. Could %osephus have written the reconstructed 'estimonium; T 17. Iid %osephus draw on old personal memories; T 21. %osephus was writin" for the @sta!lishment T 21. 'he &alilean vs. the Pauline %esus T Summary of ar"uments for Anti3uities 14

II( JESUS IN ANTI:UITIES OF THE JE?S += ,anuscript Attestation

$@ A7&e ce of teAt2a, Ba%iatio i%%e,eBa t , t is !ecomin" increasin"ly common in a discussion of the %osephan passa"es to deal first with Antiquities of the Jews 21.7.1 *21:211 in the alternate num!erin" system+# since it is often used to support the li$elihood of there havin" !een an Nori"inalO 'estimonium (lavianum which can !e distilled from the o!vious Christian para"raph in Antiquities 14.A.A. And it is !ecomin" increasin"ly common# it seems# to la!el the reference to %esus in 21.7.1 as N"enerally undisputedO or Ncertain#O as Cir!y does. One of the ar"uments made is that this passa"e is present in all the extant manuscripts. ?owever# our &ree$ manuscripts date from no earlier than the 11th century# and we do not have a manuscript tradition as rich as that of the New 'estament where comparison of texts and their families can reach !ac$ into the Ard century. t is true that we have a direct 3uotation of the Antiquities 21 passa"e !y the church historian @use!ius who wrote in the early =th century# and it does not essentially vary from the extant one. 0ut this is still over two centuries from the composition of the Antiquities# leavin" more than sufficient time and scope for emendation to have ta$en place in some 3uarters. As to the non,survival of variants showin" differences in the passa"e under discussion# somethin" often appealed to# it is virtually an axiom in textual criticism that where widely,$nown passa"es in a "iven writer# or passa"es common to different wor$s# are concerned# scri!es will often "ravitate toward a common expression# to !rin" one copy into line with another. 'hat is# a reference or turn of phrase may !e chan"ed to reflect the version that is most widely familiar *e.".# a chan"e of some of the teachin"s in the IidachePs N'wo :aysO section to a"ree with the wordin" in %esusP mouth found in )atthew+# and this can extend to the very presence of such elements. 'his would particularly apply to the two passa"es in %osephus# since in Christian hands# those references to %esus would not only have !ecome universally $nown# they would have constituted the principal raison #7etre for Christians continuin" to show any interest in %osephus at all. n

fact# it would !e amazin" to discover a manuscript which did not contain those passa"es more or less as we now have them *unless literally unearthed from some early time+. One can !e 3uite certain that lon" !efore the 11th century no manuscript of the Antiquities wor$ed on !y a Christian could fail to contain the phrase N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ ChristO in connection with %ames in 21.7.1. 'he same would !e true of the 'estimonium (lavianum in chapter 14# even if the latter# !ein" lon"er and with more elements# occasionally exhi!its some small variance. 'he enlar"ement in the Old 9ussian *Slavonic+ version is a separate matter. 'hus the lac$ of si"nificant textual variation in survivin" manuscripts# much less of a missin" element# is virtually meanin"less and cannot !e used to prove anythin". ?ere# then# is the Antiquities 21.7.1 passa"e containin" the reference to %esus *in !old+# as it stands *essentially+ in all extant copies# includin" in @use!iusP 3uote of it:
N0ut the emperor# when he learned of the death of (estus# sent Al!inus to !e

procurator of %udea . . . 0ut the youn"er Ananus who# as we have already said# had o!tained the hi"h priesthood# was of an exceedin"ly !old and rec$less disposition. . . . Ananus# therefore# !ein" of this character# and supposin" that he had a favora!le opportunity on account of the fact that (estus was dead and Al!inus was still on the way# called to"ether the Sanhedrin and !rou"ht !efore them the 7%othe% of Je&2&* the o e ca,,ed "the# Ch%i&t Gton a#elphon +esou tou legomenou ChristouH# %ames !y name# to"ether with some others and accused them of violatin" the law# and condemned them to !e stoned. 0ut those in the city who seemed most moderate and s$illed in the law were very an"ry at this# and sent secretly to the $in"# re3uestin" him to order Ananus to cease such proceedin"s . . . And the $in"# A"rippa# in conse3uence# deprived him of the hi"h priesthood# which he had held three months# and appointed %esus# the son of Iamnaeus.O

The .rother of Jesus4 the -ne Called =the> Christ

+@ Did Jo&eph2& ide tif1 Ja9e& 71 the 7%othe% of Je&2&! %efe%e ce4 , t is commonly ar"ued that %osephus li$es to identify for the readerPs sa$e a freshly introduced fi"ure !y some sort of explanatory description. 'his is his first *and only+ reference to %ames# and thus the identification of %esus as his !rother serves this purpose. 'here are a num!er of potential flaws in this position. @ven if the o!servation a!out %osephusP ha!it is valid# this does not reveal what %osephus may ori"inally have written to identify %ames. * n a moment will detail what may !e a couple of possi!ilities.+ 'here is no NcertaintyO that the identifyin" phrase as it stands now must have come from %osephusP pen# for he may have

descri!ed %ames !y some other reference which was su!se3uently chan"ed !y a Christian copyist. 'hat the latter was the case is su""ested !y the fact that the second part of the extant phrase is suspiciously identical to the one which concludes )atthew 1:1> *ho legomenos Christos: the one called *the+ Christ# thou"h the %osephan phrase is in an o!li3ue case: tou legomenou Christou+. 'he same phrase also appears in %ohn =:2/. @ven in the face of this match in )atthew and %ohn# it is often claimed that the phrase is Nnot ChristianO !ecause it is not found anywhere else in Christian writin"s. 'his o!servation does not chan"e the fact that it does appear at least twice# includin" in the most popular and widely $nown &ospel of all from the mid,second century on# and could thus have exerted an influence on a Christian copyist insertin" a phrase into %osephus. Cir!yPs su""estion that as )atthew was a %ewish,Christian# the phrase can only !e assi"ned to someone with a stron" %ewish identity *er"o: %osephus+# thus rulin" out most Christian scri!es of the latter second century or after# is hardly conclusive or even lo"ically compellin". 'here could !e any num!er of reasons why it only appears in )atthew *and %ohn+# !ut these appearances identify it as permissi!ly Christian# even if relatively rare. 0y extension# so is its match in Antiquities 21. 'he authenticity of the phrase in %osephus conse3uently !ecomes less than relia!le on these "rounds alone. Cir!y points out that references to %esus !y Christians such as Paul are overwhelmin"ly of the sort which use the term NChristO as a proper name# never as part of Nhim called Christ.O Naturally so# since Paul spea$in" of his savior "od in heaven *one of whose appellations was NChrist#O &ree$ for )essiah+ would scarcely have had any reason to use such a phrase. Such a phrase# in fact# could only appear in the context of referrin" to an historical man# and pro!a!ly only in the context of ma$in" a declaration that he had !een the )essiah. So it is hardly surprisin" that Christian parlance would tend not to show much usa"e of it# especially if there were no concept of an historical %esus on the wider scene until some time into the second century. As for its appearance in )atthew# it comes at the end of the lon" "enealo"y the evan"elist provides for %esus# and aside from its perorational value it conveys the 3uality of a declaration that this descendant of a line of distin"uished ancestors "oin" !ac$ throu"h Iavid to A!raham was the prophesied )essiah. * Pll pic$ up on this N)atthean 3ualityO a little later in connection with the Antiquities 21 usa"e.+ ncidentally# the fre3uent translation *includin" !y Cir!y+ of Ntou legomenou ChristouO in Antiquities 21 as Nthe so,called Christ#O with its s$eptical and dero"atory overtone# is in no way necessary# even if possi!le# and is in fact !elied !y the usa"e of the same phrase in )atthew and %ohn where it o!viously cannot have such a connotation. 'hose usin" the term in their translations !etray a preconceived !ias in favor of %osephan authorship.

)@ ?hat did Jo&eph2& 3 o8* o% choo&e to &a1* a7o2t Ja9e&4 , f we are not to !e" the 3uestion itself# we must as$: if# for the sa$e of ar"ument# one postulates that %esus did not exist# could not %osephus have identified his %ames in some other way; *'he 3uestion could !e as$ed even outside the context of the historical %esus de!ate.+ t cannot !e ruled out a priori that he would have had no way of doin" so# for he may have had some other nu""et of information availa!le to him. t may even !e possi!le that he offered no descriptive identification for %ames at all# an option Pll loo$ at in a moment. f %osephus did use some other phrase# one havin" no connection to %esus# letPs say# it is entirely within the realm of possi!ilityDeven pro!a!ilityDthat# "iven Christian practices of emendation evidenced in their own documentary record# a copyist would have felt %osephusP ori"inal identification inade3uate or even undesira!le# and thus su!stituted a phrase of his own# namely the one we see today. <et me deal here with a point often voiced a"ainst this possi!ility: that such an insertion would have !een much lon"er# since a Christian scri!e would have ta$en the opportunity to say much more a!out %esus. 'his is not a compellin" ar"ument. @ven a naive copyist would have reco"nized the limitations he faced. n a ti"htly, pac$ed account of %amesP death and its repercussions on Ananus# there would have !een no scope for an extended di"ression a!out %esus. t would have destroyed the passa"e. And if the copyist had a short ori"inal phrase in front of him# his tendency mi"ht well have !een to replace it with one of more or less e3ual len"th. Once a"ain# an ar"ument in favor of authenticity is rendered inconclusive or invalid. 0ut somethin" else could have happened# other than the replacement of a different ori"inal phrase. %osephus may have li$ed as a rule to provide a little description for a new character# !ut suppose that here he chose not to !ecause he felt it unnecessary# or perhaps was una!le to do so !ecause he $new so little a!out the man; Could either of these alternatives !e possi!le# and mi"ht they !e su""ested !y the evidence itself; 'he possi!ility that %osephus $new virtually nothin" else a!out %ames is su""ested !y the fact that he never tells us anythin" *outside the disputed phrase+ !eyond the fact and !asic manner of his death. *Note the difference !etween this and the lon"# detailedDand somewhat contradictoryDaccount in ?e"esippus preserved !y @use!iusM+ %osephus does not even attach the common co"nomen Nthe %ustO to %ames# somethin" which a Christian copyist would have felt no necessity to remove. *Fes# the fact that the postulated interpolator did not himself insert %amesP common nic$name# which presuma!ly would have !een $nown to him# could perhaps !e appealed to !y dissenters. 0ut itPs a minor point# and mi"ht !e explained !y sayin" that the words used of %ames !y %osephusDsee nextD wouldnPt have accommodated stic$in" in Nthe %ustO too well.+

f %osephus did $now nothin" more# then he would have !een forced to introduce %ames with no identifyin" enlar"ement. ?e would have used some e3uivalent to Na certain %amesO or Nsomeone named %ames.O Now# what in fact do we find in the &ree$; 'he actual words referrin" directly to %ames are: +a*o!os onoma autoi. 'ranslations render this N%ames !y nameO or Nwhose name was %amesO or Na man named %amesO *the last !y Crossan+. 0ut such a phrase# or somethin" close to it# could have stood perfectly well on its own *with a sli"ht chan"e in form+# and had the reference to a !rother %esus added to it !y a Christian interpolator. <etPs try such an ori"inal on for size: Ananus# therefore . . . called to"ether the Sanhedrin and !rou"ht !efore them one whose name was %ames# to"ether with some others# and accused them of violatin" the law and condemned them to !e stoned. 0ut those in the city who seemed most moderate and s$illed in the law were very an"ry at this# and sent secretly to the $in"# re3uestin" him to order Ananus to cease such proceedin"s. . . . Not only does this ma$e "ood sense# it does not 5ar within the context of the passa"e. t would hardly have offended %osephusP own or his readersP sensi!ilities. 'he passa"e is not a!out %ames *much less a!out %esus+. t is a!out the hi"h priest Ananus and his fate. Ananus was deposed !ecause he had executed Na man named %ames and certain others#O an act which incensed some of the moderates amon" the influential %ews. 'he reader didnPt have to $now anythin" further a!out those who had !een stoned# especially if %osephus couldnPt provide it. Or# %osephus may have $nown somethin" more a!out this %ames# !ut chose not to insert such information into an already loaded passa"e !ecause he didnPt thin$ that his readers needed to !e "iven that information. 9emem!er that he is primarily writin" for a "entile audience who would not have re3uired a detailed picture of every minor character they met alon" the way. Another suspicious aspect of the attached reference to %esus is that it comes first in the text# that is# the passa"e reads: N*Ananus+ !rou"ht !efore them the !rother of %esus# the one called Christ# %ames !y name# to"ether with some others . . .O Now why would %osephus thin$ to place the Jesus idea !efore the %ames one; That would !e a !it of a 5ar for the reader. ?e may !e minor# !ut %ames is the character that !rou"ht a!out AnanusP downfall and should !e foremost in %osephusP mind at this point. t seems much more natural that he would have said somethin" li$e: N*Ananus+ !rou"ht !efore them a man named %ames# who was the !rother of %esus# the one called *the+ Christ . . .O n this case# the identifyin" phrase is added as a descriptive afterthou"ht. On the other hand# if the phrase is the product of a Christian scri!e# it is understanda!le that he# consciously or unconsciously# would have "iven the reference to %esus pride of place. 'he point cannot !e too vi"orously pressed# !ut it is another dram of wei"ht to !e added to the scale. 'he several aspects of this line of ar"ument ma$e it impossi!le to claim with any

conclusiveness or even pro!a!ility that %osephus NmustO have provided a description for %ames and that it was the phrase we now find there. C@ ?o2,d Jo&eph2& haBe ide tified Je&2& 71 the o e ca,,ed "the# Ch%i&t!4 , Another pro!lem associated with the "eneral scholarly assumption a!out Antiquities 21 is the 3uestion of whether %osephus would have chosen to identify Jesus !y the phrase now found there. *:e really have a dou!le identification here: one for %amesDthat he is %esusP !rother# the second for %esusDthat hePs the one called the Christ.+ 0ut would %osephus have !een li$ely to offer the latter phrase; 'here are difficulties in assumin" that he did. (irst of all# scholars "et themselves into a contradiction when they claim that the reference to %esus in Antiquities 21 indicates that %osephus must have referred to him earlier. f so# his use of the phrase Nthe one called *the+ ChristO would imply that the point a!out the Christ was included in that earlier reference6 yet# as we shall see# the very phrase in Antiquities 14 which contains it has !een re5ected as a later Christian insertion into the %osephan ori"inal# since it is so !latantly Christian. 'hus %osephus would !e alludin" to somethin" he hadnPt said. And his readers mi"ht have !een left wonderin" what he was tal$in" a!out. * Pll come !ac$ to this pro!lem when discussin" Antiquities 14.+ 'his o!5ection can !e !roadened# however. 'he %ewish )essiah concept *NChristO in &ree$+ would not necessarily !e a su!5ect with which %osephusP readers were all that familiar. f %osephus were "oin" to introduce the term# one would expect him to feel constrained to provide a discussion of it somewhere. n fact# the )essiah idea was such a dramatic one# that if one of his characters had actually !een desi"nated as such !y his followers# %osephus could hardly have avoided addressin" this unusual man and episode at some len"th. Fet curiously enou"h# the whole %ewish tradition of messianic expectation is a su!5ect %osephus seems to avoid# for he nowhere directly descri!es it# not even in connection with the re!ellious "roups and a"itators in the period prior to the %ewish :ar. *?is one clear reference to the messianic NoraclesO of the %ews# the o!5ect of whom# he claims# was Bespasian GJewish 2ar >./.=H# is dealt with in very cursory fashion.+ 'his silence and this reluctance *if it !e so+ would seem to preclude the li$elihood that he would introduce the su!5ect at all# especially as a simple aside# in connection with %esus. )oreover# if he is merely loo$in" for some 3uic$ way to identify this %esus for his readers *one of many !y that name in his chronicle+# he has a much easier# and less char"ed# way to do so. ?e simply has to say# Nthe one who was crucified !y Pilate.O 'his is a point which supposedly #i# appear in the Nori"inalO passa"e of Antiquities 14 postulated !y scholars# one that would have !een easily remem!ered !y the reader. f in fact %osephus had written the NauthenticO 'estimonium# with no reference to the Christ# the point a!out Pilate would have

!een the automatic choice. *'his i"nores# of course# the consideration that no such crucifixion !y Pilate actually too$ place.+ '@ ?a& the %efe%e ce to Je&2& a 9a%0i a, 0,o&&4 , f it is a le"itimate possi!ility that %osephus had no phrase where the present one now standsDa possi!ility am increasin"ly leanin" towardDwhat can we say a!out the su""estion !y &. A. :ells *and others+ that the N%esusO phrase is simply a mar"inal "loss; Iespite the scorn which Cir!y and others have heaped on :ells for su""estin" it# the idea is anythin" !ut ludicrous. 'he mere physical shape and character of the phrase would fit perfectly well with a notation in the mar"in which an early copyist could have made to supply the identification which %osephus lac$ed# a copyist who was !othered !y the fact that the historian had made no such lin$. (ollowin" the usual process# the mar"in notation would then have "otten transferred into the !oo$ at a later time. As to the content of the phrase# who $nows why the interpolator may have chosen to echo )atthew 1:1>; Perhaps for the same reason that )atthew used words which had the effect of declarin" %esus to have !een the )essiah. 'he scri!e may have !een expressin" his own affirmation of personal faith# especially in the face of %osephusP insolent disre"ard of %esus alto"ether. ?e may have !een wor$in" the previous day on transcri!in" that first chapter of the &ospel. Perhaps he had a personal preference for the )atthean turn of phraseDwho $nows; :e lose si"ht of the fact that so much in history# !i" and small# depends not on the lar"er# formalized issues as we see them from a distance *or have constructed them+# !ut on nitty,"ritty# mundane circumstancesDsuch as Napoleon not "ettin" the !attle of :aterloo off to a timely start !ecause of a Qpersonal discomfortP pro!lem related to sittin" on his horse. Such thin"s cannot !e dismissed or overloo$ed simply !ecause they offend our desire for neatness and conse3uentiality. *?owever# the mar"inal "loss option may prove unnecessary when come to consider the case of the Nlost referenceO to %ames.+ D@ Did Jo&eph2& %efe% to Ja9e& a& 7%othe% of the Lo%d!4 , 'here is another possi!ility which alluded to earlier# that %osephus did in fact have a phrase identifyin" %ames: namely# the same as the one used !y Paul in &alatians 1:17# N!rother of the <ord.O have in several places su""estedDas have others !efore meDthat the phrase did not# in PaulPs mind# refer to %ames as the si!lin" of an historical %esus. 9ather# it constituted a $ind of title attached to %ames as the most prominent fi"ure# perhaps the head# of a %ewish N!rotherhoodO of apostles of the spiritual Christ# located in %erusalem# the one referred to in 1 Corinthians 7 and 1/. As a sect they may have !een $nown as N!rothers of the <ordO *as su""ested !y 1 Cor. 7:/ and even !y the sli"ht variant in Philippians 1:1=+# with a special desi"nation of %ames as the N!rother of the <ord.O will not repeat here my ar"uments for *a+ the le"itimate interpretation of

N!rotherO in the sense of N!rethrenO and *!+ the supportin" evidence in the ascriptions to the *pseudonymous+ epistles of %ames and %ude that early Christians $new of no such si!lin" relationship of %ames to their cultic Christ. *See my response to Sean.+ 'here is nothin" unusual# despite Cir!yPs protestations# in an individual or a sect referrin" to itself as N!rother*s+ of the <ordO in reference to a deity. ndeed# the phrase may ori"inally have referred to &od the (ather# and if so# then %osephus may himself have $nown of this phrase associated with %ames# and understood it with the meanin" of N&odO when attachin" it to him in Antiquities 21. t would have re3uired no further comment on his part# let alone some explanatory passa"e here or elsewhere# tal$in" a!out who this N<ordO was. Over half a century later# as @use!iusP 3uote of ?e"esippus indicates# Christians understood the phrase *and others li$e it+ to refer to the &ospel %esus of Nazareth and to presumed family relationships to him# !ut this is much later than the time of %osephus# when an historical %esus was well esta!lished. )ore of a pro!lem arises# perhaps# when one considers how and why this possi!le desi"nation in Antiquities 21 was chan"ed to the one witnessed !y Ori"en and all later copies: from N!rother of the <ordO to N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ Christ.O Cir!y has su""ested that there would have !een no reason for a scri!e to tamper with this passa"e# since the phrase was now understood with the si!lin" meanin". Cir!y as$s: N:ho would want to chan"e Q<ordP to Q%esus,who,is,called, )essiahP;O and he notes that the former phrase has survived in &alatians 1:17 completely intact. As for the latter o!5ection# this is an entirely different matter. A Christian document# especially one !y Paul# hardly needs amendin" on a point li$e this for an exclusively Christian readership. 0ut where the historical wor$s of a non,Christian historian were concerned# Christian copyists may have felt otherwise# and re"arded N!rother of the <ordO as an inade3uate identification of the new historical %esus for the "eneral reader. 0ut itPs a stic$y point# admit. And overall# am less inclined now than when first made the su""estion a few years a"o# to consider that this is the route !y which N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ ChristO entered Antiquities 21. 'he proposition that %osephus# $nowin" next to nothin" a!out %ames or choosin" not to ela!orate on him# simply made no desi"nation for him !eyond a phrase li$e None named %amesO seems more li$ely to me now# with the reference to %esus !ein" invented !y a Christian and inserted into the text. 0ut in this process# thin$ there was another factor involved# and this !rin"s me to the so,called Nlost reference#O as styled !y Cir!y.

The 5$ost 2eference6 to James and Jesus

E@ Ja9e& a& the ca2&e of the fa,, of Je%2&a,e9 , n Ori"en three times and in @use!ius once# there appears the statement that %osephus !elieved that the

calamity of the %ewish :ar *>>,81+ was visited upon the %ews !y &od !ecause of their murder of %ames the %ust. 'his murder is recounted !y %osephus in Antiquities 21.7.1# where the phrase N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ ChristO is attached to %ames. 0ut in that passa"e# as the reader may remem!er# the idea of a causal lin$ !etween %amesP death and the fall of %erusalem does not appear# nor does it appear anywhere else in our extant copies of %osephus. (rom Ori"en# it would !e possi!le to conclude that the idea was once there in Antiquities 21 and has since !een removed# or that it appeared somewhere else in %osephus and was removed or disappeared from that other spot. Peter Cir!y claims that this lost reference to %ames Nhas !een almost universally i"nored !y critics#O !ut this is not 3uite true. Others have noted it *e.".# Charles &ui"ne!ert# Jesus# p.14+# thou"h in less prominent and detailed a fashion. 9o!ert @isenman also deals with it in his recent !oo$ James' the 5rother of Jesus *p.2A=f+. 0ut seem to remem!er someone li$e Carl Cauts$y ma$in" the assumption that when Ori"en referred to the lin$ !etween %amesP death and the fall of %erusalem# he was drawin" on a statement he found in his copy of Antiquities 21.7.1# thus provin" that this passa"e had !een tampered with. *S. 0randon seems to ma$e the same assumption# in The Fall of Jerusalem an# the Christian Church# p./2 and 111f.+ :ells deals with the Qlost referenceP correctly in his first !oo$# The Jesus of the Early Christians# p.17A,=# !ut in too condensed a fashion# thin$# which may !e lost on the uninitiated reader. 'he Cauts$y assumption is almost certainly erroneous. 0oth @isenman and Cir!y point out that in the three passa"es in which Ori"en refers to the lin$ !etween %amesP death and the fall of %erusalem *Commentary on /atthew 11:18# Contra Celsum 1:=8 R 2:1A+# he is not ma$in" a direct 3uotation of %osephusP words# nor does he point to a specific location6 only in the first case does he ma$e a passin" mention of the Antiquities in "eneral *see !elow+. 0ut we can !e fairly sure that Ori"en cannot !e drawin" the idea from his copy of the Antiquities 21 account a!out %ames# !ecause a 3uotation of that very passa"e in @use!ius does not show it *Ecclesiastical %istory 2.2A.22+. ?ere @use!ius had 5ust tal$ed a!out a reputed %ewish opinion *seemin"ly of the past# and not necessarily held !y %ews of his own time+ that the destruction of %erusalem was caused !y &odPs wrath directed at them over the martyrdom of %ames# and he points out *i!i#.# 2A:21+ that %osephus concurred in this opinion:
N%osephus has not hesitated to testify this in his writin"s# where he says# Q'hese

thin"s happened to the %ews to aven"e %ames the %ust# who was a !rother of %esus who is called *the+ Christ. (or the %ews slew him# althou"h he was a most 5ust man.P O @use!ius# li$e Ori"en# does not identify the location of this passa"e in %osephus# !ut he "oes on *2A:22f+ to "ive his readers another 3uote from %osephus# this one

with its location:

NAnd the same writer also records his death in the 21th !oo$ of his Antiquities in

the followin" words: Q0ut the emperor# when he learned . . .P O @use!ius reproduces the full Antiquities 21.7.1 passa"e# which reads the same as that "iven earlier# and *li$e our extant copies+ contains no reference to a causal lin$ !etween %amesP death and the fall of %erusalem. (rom this# and from the lan"ua"e he uses to introduce the second 3uote# the inevita!le conclusion is that @use!iusP first 3uote is from some other passa"e in %osephusP writin"s# one which su!se3uently disappeared or was removed# since no extant manuscript shows it anywhere. t is a natural and li$ely inference that Ori"enPs three,fold reference to the %ames,%erusalem lin$ is not from Antiquities 21 either# !ut from this same now,lost passa"e which @use!ius 3uotes. *0ecause of this multiple witness# and !ecause @use!ius ma$es a direct 3uote# the su""estion that the memories of !oth commentators are !ein" confused with somethin" ?e"esippus mi"ht have said in the same vein# while %osephus in fact made no such comment at all# is unli$ely.+ 'he reference Qin passin"P to Antiquities of the Jews in Ori"enPs first 3uote *Commentary on /atthew 11:18# which reads: N. . .that (lavius %osephus# who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 21 !oo$s# when wishin" to exhi!it the cause why . . .O+ may present a complication here# since on the surface it mi"ht su""est that Ori"en is drawin" from Antiquities 21. 0ut this would re3uire assumin"D perhaps as Cauts$y and 0randon didDthat the lin$ !etween the death of %ames and the fall of %erusalem was present in Ori"enPs copy !ut not in that of @use!ius *indicatin" Christian tamperin" with the former+. 'hat may !e possi!le# !ut thin$ it is more pro!a!le that Ori"en is confused a!out where in %osephus he had read it. Antiquities 21 dealt with the death of %ames# while only the lost reference !rou"ht in the lin$ to the fall of %erusalem as well. Ori"en# at least at that moment# may have thou"ht that Antiquities 21 contained !oth points. 'he fact that he does not locate it specifically in chapter 21 or anywhere else *see the 3uote a!ove+ su""ests that he is simply expressin" a va"ue recollection. 'his is easier to postulate than to assume that the lin$ was in Ori"enPs copy# !ut that it was removed !efore @use!ius 3uoted it or that @use!ius was usin" a different manuscript line which never contained itDalthou"h !oth options are possi!le. 0ut there is a corollary to this o!servation which could !e very important. f Ori"en is liftin" into his memory of Antiquities 21 a point which only appeared in the lost reference *the %ames,%erusalem lin$+# he may !e dra""in" in somethin" else as well which only appeared there. @use!iusP 3uote shows that the phrase N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ ChristO was present in the lost reference. Since Ori"en nowhere proves otherwise# the source of Ori"enPs three,fold mention of N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ ChristO may !e solely the lost reference#

and the phrase may not ha-e !een present in the Antiquities 8; passage of "rigen7s copy. Naturally# this cannot !e proven# !ut it presents us with this situation: outside of @use!ius *who# almost a century later# 3uotes the passa"e directly from his copy of %osephus+# nothin" !efore our earliest extant manuscripts "ives clear evidence of the presence of the %esus reference in Antiquities 21. >@ ?hat 8a& the &o2%ce of the ,o&t %efe%e ce! idea4 , 0oth @isenman and Cir!y speculate as to where the Nlost referenceO mi"ht have !een. Cir!y opts for Jewish 2ar >./.A# followin" %osephusP account of the 9oman sie"e. Possi!ly so# and wonPt ar"ue over its location. n any case# the reference is now "one. :e also have to note another of its features# that it contained the phrase N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ Christ#O identical to the extant reference in Antiquities 21. :hich !rin"s us to a very critical consideration. :ho wrote that now,lost passa"e; Cir!y ar"ues for the view that it is ori"inal to %osephus# namely that %osephus himself wrote:
NThe&e thi 0& happe ed to the Je8& to aBe 0e Ja9e& the J2&t* 8ho 8a& a

7%othe% of Je&2& 8ho i& ca,,ed "the# Ch%i&t@ Fo% the Je8& &,e8 hi9* a,tho20h he 8a& a 9o&t F2&t 9a @! have to disa"ree with this 5ud"ment. *So# !y the way# does :ells# who however spends no time ar"uin" the 3uestion.+ Cir!y points out that ?e"esippus# as reported !y @use!ius# witnesses to Christians of his time *mid 2nd century+ holdin" the view that it was %amesP murder which prompted &od to punish the %ews. *At least the implication is there in the @use!ius 3uotation.+ 0ut in view of the fact that Ori"en railed a"ainst this view# and !ecause Ori"en witnesses to the more natural view one would expect to find amon" ChristiansDthat it was the $illin" of Jesus which was the source of &odPs wrath a"ainst the %ewsDCir!y su""ests that the sentiment in the lost passa"e is a Jewish pro#uct# somethin" which %osephus reported and concurred with. Cir!y must fall !ac$# then# on the su""estion that the ?e"esippus tradition ori"inated in an earlier %ewish one# which Christians too$ over. 'he incon"ruity here should !e o!vious. f the tradition !e"an with the %ews# it may !e difficult to understand why Christians of ?e"esippusP time or earlier would have adopted it# "iven the more natural choice re"ardin" %esus. 0ut we have to as$ an even more tellin" 3uestion. f %ames was a prominent Christian fi"ure *even of the so,called N%ewish,ChristianO variety+ and !rother of a supposed su!versive who had !een crucified# why would non,Christian %ews tend to "ive him such an honor as to !elieve that &od had wrea$ed upon them the "reatest calamity in %ewish history simply !ecause of his death; )oreover# this would imply that Christianity# and !y extension %esusP own status# was supporte# !y Go#. :ould %ews have !elieved such a thin"; ?ardly. 'he proposition# therefore# ma$es very

little sense and is virtually impossi!le to accept. G@ Did Ch%i&tia & o%i0i ate the Ja9e&5Je%2&a,e9 ,i 34 , 0efore "oin" on to the central 3uestion of whether %osephus himself would have su!scri!ed to and set down in writin" such a sentiment# letPs see if a different ori"in for the idea ma$es !etter sense. Not that it arose with %ews# !ut rather with Christians. After all# in some sense# %ames was a !eliever in the Christ *witness 1 Cor. 1/:8+ and thus would not have !een re"arded as a mainstream %ew. ?e"esippus# if we can interpret him properly throu"h @use!ius# witnesses to an actual Christian acceptance that the destruction of %erusalem resulted from the death of %ames. t is thus more li$ely that %ames was re"arded with esteem in certain Christian circles# and that they themselves developed the tradition that the %ews suffered on account of %ames. 'he dynamic here ma$es more sense# too# in that !y the 2nd century# Christianity was splittin" from the syna"o"ue# and hostility existed !etween the two "roups. 9ather than assume that %ews chose to heap this $ind of condemnation on their own heads# it ma$es much !etter sense to see the Christians as Nexplainin"O *perhaps in tauntin" tones+ that the %ewsP calamity was their own fault# !ecause they had murdered %ames the %ust. ndeed# the lost reference has su""estions of this tauntin" tone# as Pll "o into in a moment. (irst# however# we must address the apparent pro!lem associated with my su""estion. As alluded to a!ove# would not Christians have tended# in see$in" to taunt the %ews and explain to them why their city had !een destroyed# to seize on the crucifixion of %esusDas Ori"en demonstrates; One explanation# however# solves the pro!lem. 'he need to interpret the destruction of %erusalem would li$ely have developed early# lon" !efore ?e"esippus. At such a time# an historical Jesus an# historical crucifi$ion ha# not yet !een in-ente## or at least would not have !een widely disseminated !eyond a few early &ospel communities# and thus the idea would not have existed in the !roader Christian world. nstead# %ames the %ust# head of a prominent sect in %erusalem which !elieved in a spiritual Christ# murdered !y the %ewish hi"h priest 5ust !efore the :ar# would have !een the natural# and perhaps only candidate availa!le. And althou"h the idea of an historical %esus was well under way !y ?e"esippusP time# the force of the ori"inal tradition a!out %amesP death could still !e operatin"# to !e supplanted !y the concept of %esusP role only later# perhaps around the time Ori"en is expressin" his dissentin" opinion in the early Ard century. $=@ Co2,d Jo&eph2& haBe 8%itte the Ja9e&5Je%2&a,e9 ,i 34 , Can we really entertain the possi!ility that the lost reference is from the pen of %osephus; (irst of all# the tone of the passa"e has a faintly tauntin" 3uality a!out it# certainly an uncompromisin"ly critical one. %osephus is 3uite capa!le of condemnin" certain elements on the %ewish pre,:ar scene# such as the Sealots# !ut no such nuanced analysis is present here. Calamities happened Nto the %ews.O N'he %ews slew him.O 'he latter !lan$et 5ud"ment would hardly !e fair# and contradicts the $nown

passa"e in Antiquities 21. 'here %osephus is 3uite specific in imputin" responsi!ility for the $illin" of %ames to Ananus and the cli3ue around him. ndeed# he hi"hli"hts the an"er of the %ewish NmoderatesO at this act. 'his ma$es the phrase Nthe %ews slew himO hardly in $eepin" with the actual event# nor with %osephusP own recorded sentiments a!out it. And he would hardly envision &od punishin" the entire %ewish nation for a murder he himself portrays as the responsi!ility of an upstart hi"h priest# one whom other %ews promptly condemned and had removed. A second# minor# point a"ainst %osephan authorship is found in the fact that the lost reference adds Nthe %ustO to %ames# whereas it is missin" in the more relia!le reference to %ames *the !asic phrase+ in Antiquities 21. 'he same o!5ections put forward a!ove to the idea that %ews in "eneral had come up with the tradition that %amesP death had caused the destruction of %erusalem apply to %osephus himself. :ould %osephus have !een willin" to dump so heavily on the %ewish nation# as well as to accept the implication that &od was on the Christian side; s %osephus li$ely to have held the Christian %ames in such hi"h esteemDa man lin$ed to a trou!lesome sect# one who *in the view of my dissenters+ had a !rother who was executed; ?e spends only a handful of words tal$in" a!out %ames in Antiquities 21# none of them even intimatin" such a concept. ?ad %osephus su!scri!ed to such a tradition as is found in the lost reference# he would surely have ta$en the time somewhere to "ive his readers a fuller# more laudatory account of the man over whom &od destroyed the %ewish state and leveled his own holy 'emple to the "roundM Cir!y su""ests that N%osephus was somewhat superstitious and li$ed to find mysterious causes for events. . . . %osephus was loo$in" for causes of the calamity that !efell %erusalem# and the un5ust execution of a man in >2 C@ !y the hi"h priest is as "ood as any.O :ell# thin$ %osephus has "iven us clear evidence of what he actually saw as the cause of the calamity. 'he whole tenor of his writin"s in re"ard to the %ewish :ar is an open condemnation of the revolutionary movement which led up to it# !e"innin" with %udas the &alilean *in > C@+# to"ether with the immediate machinations of the 9oman "overnor &essius (lorus who# as %osephus presents it# deli!erately enticed the nation into war. N t was in &essius (lorusPs time that the nation !e"an to "row mad with this distemper *that is# the revolutionary movement !e"un with %udas+ . . . and who occasioned the %ews to "o wild with it !y the a!use of his authorityO *Antiquities 14.1.>+. @arlier in 14.1.1# he condemns men li$e %udas# who Nlaid the foundations of our future miseries.O 9i"ht after an account of his third a"itator of the people# an N@"yptian false prophet#O %osephus descri!es another NinflammationO of the Ndiseased !odyO *meanin" the movement for revolt+: the activities of a maraudin" Sealotic !and a"itatin" for re!ellion a"ainst

9ome. ?e comments# Nand this till all %udea was filled with the effects of their madness. And thus the flame was every day more and more !lown up# till it came to a direct warO *Jewish 2ar 2.1A.>+. 'here is no hint of any role for %amesP death here or anywhere else in %osephusP analysis of the causes of the confla"ration. Nor do thin$# superstitious or not# that %osephus# as a competent and sophisticated historian# would have !een "uilty of such a naive concept# one that involved so "reat an im!alance !etween cause and effect. 'here remains yet another serious o!5ection to the idea that %osephus wrote the lost passa"e. :ould he# writin" for "entiles under (lavian patrona"e# attri!ute the fall of %erusalem to the motivations of the %ewish &od usin" the 9omans as a pawn for his purposes; thin$ it would have cost him his privile"ed position to so !elittle 9oman and (lavian control over events. 'hus# it is more li$ely that %osephus would have viewed the matter as his sponsors did: that %erusalem fell !ecause the 9omans had decided the %udean pro!lem had to !e solved# the revolutionary movement crushed. 'he destruction of the %ewish state was an expression of 9oman mi"ht and invinci!ility# and the inevita!ility of 9omePs rulin" position in the world. %osephus# in Jewish 2ar A./.4# declares that one of his purposes in writin" is Nto deter others who may !e tempted to revolt.O 'his would hardly !e accomplished !y sayin" that %erusalem fell !ecause of the manipulative actions of the %ewish &od. t is true that in a few placesDalmost all of them in the earlier wor$# Jewish 2arD %osephus expresses sentiments su""estin" that the actions of the Sealots in the years leadin" up to the conflict# their murders and mayhem# and especially their defilin" of the 'emplePs purity# led &od to ac3uiesce in the destruction of the city and 'emple !y the 9omans as a means of purification. *'hese passa"es# as well as much else# are itemized on &. %. &old!er"Ps very comprehensive and informative N(lavius %osephusO site at Uhttp:LLmem!ers.aol.comL(<%OS@P?ESLhome.htmV+. As for the matter of the destruction of temple and city# would offer these o!servations a!out such passa"es:
1. No mention is made of %amesP murder# which further supports the re5ection

of the lost reference as authored !y %osephus.

2. 'he a!ove noted sentiments stand in some tension with those passa"es

3uoted earlier in this section in which %osephus allocates the causes of the :ar to the revolutionary movement and the 9omansP reaction to it# as well as to the role of the "overnor &essius (lorus. ?owever:
A. :hile %osephus is concerned with 5ustifyin" 9oman actions and providin" a

lesson to the world at lar"eDa lesson of paramount importance to his (lavian patronsDthat re!ellion a"ainst 9ome is futile# he also# especially in the earlier wor$# $ept his eye on his own countrymen and their interests. 'hus %osephus sometimes offers comments and explanations in terms of

%ewish concerns a!out prophecy# ritual purity and divine providence# and these explanations do not always "el with others.

From the $ost 2eference to Anti:uities ?@

$$@ ?a& the%e a d2a, i te%po,atio of the 7%othe% of Je&2&! %efe%e ce4 , :e thus arrive at the impossi!ility of acceptin" the lost reference as authentic to %osephus. t has to !e a Christian interpolation# now disappeared. *As to why or how# Pll loo$ at that shortly.+ @use!ius 3uotes the interpolation# wherever he found it. Ori"en refers to it indirectly. 0oth are 3uite possi!ly usin" copies from the same manuscript family6 !oth are wor$in" in the eastern )editerranean. 'he interpolation thus predates Ori"en# thou"h it does not have to predate ?e"esippus since the latter is li$ely# as noted a!ove# to !e !ased on an idea developed in Christian tradition some time after the %ewish :ar# and not dependent on anythin" written in a manuscript of %osephus or anywhere else. 0ut we are now faced with somethin" truly si"nificant. 'his interpolated passa"e from a Christian hand contains the phrase: N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ Christ#O attached to %ames. (irst# the words are thus identified as Christian# and conse3uently the claim already countered earlier that it is a non,Christian phrase collapses completely. 0ut even more important: how do we relate the fact of its presence in a Christian interpolation to the presence of the identical words in Antiquities 21; As :ells su""ests *i!id# p.17=+# 5ust on "eneral principle its identification as an interpolation in one spot leads to the Nreasona!le inferenceO that it is an interpolation in the other. 0ut letPs loo$ at the point more closely. 'here are a num!er of theoretical possi!ilities: 1. 'he interpolator of the lost reference *perhaps into Jewish 2ar >./.A+ has copied an already existin" phrase in Antiquities 21# deli!erately or unconsciously. 2. ?e was not influenced !y Antiquities 21# !ut !y coincidence and perhaps under the influence of )atthew 1:1> he worded his phrase in the same way. A. 'he interpolator was not drawin" from Antiquities 21 !ecause the phrase referrin" to %esus was not there yet. nstead# a reverse imitation too$ place. 'he Antiquities 21 phrase came into !ein" later !y copyin" the first# now,lost interpolation. 0oth interpolations may !e from the same hand# thou"h that is impossi!le to tell. Option 1 has inherent pro!lems. :ould a Christian copyist# interpolatin" an entire new passa"e into Jewish 2ar# !other to di" into the Antiquities for a phrase to descri!e %ames and not simply come up with one of his own; n fact# it has !een ar"ued that the phrase Nthe one called *the+ ChristO in Antiquities 21 is un, ChristianDand even dero"atoryMDwhich is ta$en as evidence that it cannot !e

from the hand of an interpolator !ut must !e authentic to %osephus. f this were the case# surely the Christian interpolator of the lost passa"e# even had he thou"ht of it# would have tended to avoid usin" the Antiquities 21 phrase. f others wish to ar"ue that the interpolator was deli!erately copyin" %osephusP words and style to Qmas$P the interpolation# fine. Pd love to $now that this ar"ument is accepta!le# that a Christian copyist insertin" somethin" into %osephus will deli!erately try to imitate his style and voca!ulary. could certainly use that ar"umentDand willDin connection with Antiquities 14. And the fact that the interpolator could !e creative and add Nthe %ustO to %ames# which he would not have found in Antiquities 21# su""ests that he would have felt no compunction a!out puttin" in his own phrase rather than the Qs$eptical un,ChristianP one# and so we would not find the lost passa"e as it stands 3uoted in @use!ius. At !est# this option is 3uite inconclusive. Option 2 is inherently less li$ely# thou"h not impossi!le. A"ain# others should find it made pro!lematic !y their claim that# !ein" un,Christian and even dero"atory# the interpolator would not have used this phrase. 'hat leaves option A. <et me repeat that find no pro!lem in envisionin" some Christian copyist comin" up with this phrase for the now,lost reference *Nthe one called the ChristO+# pro!a!ly under the influence of )atthew 1:1># and to convey the same idea. ?ere# then# we have a perfectly feasi!le chain of events explainin" the presence of an interpolated reference to %esus in Antiquities 21. t was put there# throu"h process of imitation# !y a Christian who simply lifted it from the lost reference# itself an earlier interpolation# pro!a!ly in the Jewish 2ar. 'his second insertion *the scri!e is castin" a!out for a phrase# not composin" an entire passa"e+ may have served to satisfy someone who felt that Na certain %ames#O or Na man named %ames#O especially one whom %osephus had in no way lin$ed to %esus of Nazareth# could not stand without enlar"ement. Or# if the phrase N!rother of the <ordO *or some other description+ had stood in Antiquities 21# the force of the earlier interpolation# perhaps tri""ered !y the common word N!rother#O could have led the copyist to replace %osephusP desi"nation with one considered more suita!le. )y preference now is to opt for the former. 'here is nothin" so common in textual criticism as to reco"nize that scri!es insertDperhaps !e"innin" with a mar"inal "lossDclarifications and enlar"ements when they thin$ such thin"s are needed in the text. * n this particular case# since am ar"uin" for a process of imitation from the lost reference# the mar"inal "loss element would not apply.+ :e mi"ht even speculate that the same scri!e was responsi!le for !oth. Once he had placed the lost reference to %amesP murder !ein" responsi!le for the fall of %erusalem into the one text# with its identifyin" lin$ of %ames to %esus# he may have felt that the other reference to %ames in Antiquities 21Dthe "enuine oneD should show the same identifyin" phrase# whether nothin" stood there# or a desi"nation li$e N!rother of the <ord.O Perhaps he felt that %osephus would have !een consistent# and so he altered the Antiquities 21 reference. 0ut this# as say# is

impossi!le to tell. Cir!y ridicules the idea that a sin"le scri!e could have Nsnea$ily insertedO the N!rother of %esusO reference into !oth Jewish 2ar and Antiquities 21. 0ut have shown that the situation is more su!tle than that. )y ar"ument hin"es on the o!servation that it is so hi"hly unli$ely that %osephus could have authored the lost reference himself# we can safely re5ect the possi!ility that he did. Once this is accepted# everythin" falls into place. :e must remem!er# too# that the insertion of the lost reference pro!a!ly too$ place relatively soon after %osephusP pu!lication# no more than half a century or so# since later than that# the interpolator would have tended to reflect the replacement tradition evidenced !y Ori"en# that it was the death of Jesus which had !een responsi!le for the fall of %erusalem. At such an early time# no frantic Christian scri!es had to rush around insertin" false passa"es into all the manuscripts of !oth wor$s. 'o 5ud"e !y the common version of Ori"en and @use!ius *the one in @"ypt# the other a little further north in Caesarea+# !oth emendations were pro!a!ly made in the east# perhaps in the latter 2nd century *or the Antiquities 21 interpolation may have !een inserted a while later+# to one of the few manuscript sets of %osephus that would have !een circulatin" in Christian circles there. t is not surprisin" to find the chain proceedin" from that dual emendation and endin" up on the des$s of two commentators wor$in" in the same area less than a century apart. As time went on# Christians "ained control of all documentation# so that common $nowled"e and imitation eventually ensured that all new copies of the Antiquities would contain the now,accepted reference to %ames as N!rother of %esus# the one called *the+ Christ.O $+@ Lo&i 0 the ,o&t %efe%e ce , 'he final# and somewhat perplexin"# point to address in connection with Antiquities 21 and the lost reference is this: what happened to that latter passa"e# the interpolation which set everythin" in motion; Ori"en and @use!ius read it# and a!out half a century later# %erome *in +llustrious /en 2+ refers to it o!li3uely# !ut thereafter it disappears and fails to show up in any extant manuscript. 0oth @isenman and Cir!y su""est that it was removed# under the influence of Ori"enPs criticism that %osephus should have specified the death of Jesus as the cause of &odPs wrath and the destruction of the city. Althou"h the issue is not critical to my ar"ument# find this almost incredi!le. :hy would a copyist follow only half of Ori"enPs advice; One would thin$ it a near certainty that in removin" the offendin" lin$ with %ames# he would have replaced it with the new# preferred lin$ to %esus. :e would then find the lost reference in our manuscripts of the Jewish 2ar# !ut expressin" the view that Nthese thin"s happened to the %ews to aven"e the crucifixion of %esus.O n any case# %erome witnesses to the lost referencePs continued existence into the latter =th century *thou"h he# too# was wor$in" in the east+. 0y then# many copies of

%osephus would presuma!ly !e circulatin"# includin" in <atin# and copyists would face a monumental pro!lem in removin" the lost reference from all of them. :ould the process of imitation have wor$ed as efficiently where a deletion is concerned; At the very least# surely some!ody somewhere alon" the line would have chosen the option to chan"e instead of delete. 'hus it would seem that there are too many difficulties involved in the proposition put forward !y @isenman and Cir!y. )y own "uess would !e that# !ecause the lost reference was an interpolation to !e"in with# it found its way only into certain manuscript lines which eventually died out. :hy then# the reader mi"ht as$# did the lost reference die out# !ut not its NimitationO in Antiquities 21; 'he pro!lem may not# in principle# !e so difficult. f the lost reference was in only some copies of Jewish 2ar# then its disappearance would !e part of the transmission history *an eventually defunct one+ which certain manuscript lines of that wor$ underwent. Once the phrase a!out %esus# copyin" the one placed in Jewish 2ar# was inserted into the passa"e in Antiquities 21# it would have under"one its own fate# in this case survivin" and spreadin" westward throu"h imitative transmission# part of the manuscript history of a different document. tPs a difficult pro!lem on either side of the de!ate# !ut we cannot hope to uncover the intricacies of manuscript transmission in a case li$e this over a period of several centuries# especially when we have no extant copies from that period. 0ut as say# the issue is not critical to my ar"ument. ; ?ere in summary *followin" the num!ered headin"s in the text+ is the ar"ument thus far# relatin" to Antiquities of the Jews 21.7.1: $@ A7&e ce of teAt2a, Ba%iatio i%%e,eBa t , 'he practice of imitation and Christian interests operatin" !efore the earliest extant manuscripts of the 11th century would ensure that all copies show the two references to %esus. +@ Did Jo&eph2& ide tif1 Ja9e& 71 the 7%othe% of Je&2&! %efe%e ce4 , 'he reference to %esus in Antiquities 21 could !e Christian# since it echoes the phrase in )atthew 1:1> and %ohn =:2/. 'he ar"ument that this is not a Christian mode of expression is wea$. )@ ?hat did Jo&eph2& 3 o8* o% choo&e to &a1* a7o2t Ja9e&4 , %osephus may have used some other piece of information to identify %esus# or he may have said somethin" li$e Na certain %ames !y nameO *which the present wordin" would su""est+# perhaps !ecause he $new next to nothin" a!out %ames or chose not to ela!orate. @ither way# a dissatisfied copyist would have inserted the present reference# not ma$in" a lon"er one !ecause of space and content considerations. 'he order of ideas# %esus first# %ames second# is suspicious. C@ ?o2,d Jo&eph2& haBe ide tified Je&2& 71 the o e ca,,ed "the# Ch%i&t!4 ,

'he Antiquities 21 phrase implies an earlier reference to Nthe Christ#O !ut scholars re5ect the one in Antiquities 14 as an insertion. Any NChristO reference would re3uire treatment of the %ewish )essiah tradition# !ut %osephus "ives none and seems to avoid the su!5ect entirely. ?e should have preferred to identify %esus !y referrin" to his crucifixion !y Pilate. '@ ?a& the %efe%e ce to Je&2& a 9a%0i a, 0,o&&4 , n the a!sence of any descriptive phrase for %ames# a mar"inal "loss would have !een natural# and the phrase referrin" to %esus has that shape and character. 'he copyist mi"ht have mimic$ed )atthew 1:1> as an affirmation that %esus had !een the )essiah. *A mar"inal "loss may !e superfluous in view of No. 7.+ D@ Did Jo&eph2& %efe% to Ja9e& a& 7%othe% of the Lo%d!4 , %osephus may ori"inally have referred to %ames as N!rother of the <ord#O as Paul does in &alatians 1:17# this perhaps !ein" a widely,used co"nomen of %ames as head of the %erusalem !rotherhood# one %osephus may have !een familiar with and even understood as referrin" to &od. 0ein" in a non,Christian wor$# it may have !een chan"ed to reflect the new historical reality of %esus with a more "eneral audience in mind. *'his is no lon"er my preferred option.+ E@ Ja9e& a& the ca2&e of the fa,, of Je%2&a,e9 , 'he Nlost referenceO to %amesP death as the cause of the fall of %erusalem contained the identical phrase a!out %esus that we have in Antiquities 21. 'his may have !een the source of Ori"enPs N!rother of %esusO phrase and not Antiquities 21# leavin" only @use!ius is a witness to it !efore our extant manuscripts. >@ ?hat 8a& the &o2%ce of the ,o&t %efe%e ce! idea4 , 'he %ames,%erusalem lin$ is almost impossi!le to accept as a %ewish product# since %ames was a Christian and it would imply that Christianity was supported !y &od6 nor would %ews have !een li$ely to heap that $ind of condemnation on themselves. @use!iusP report that %ews !elieved this does not seem to refer to his own time# and would !e unrelia!le for an earlier period. G@ Did Ch%i&tia & o%i0i ate the Ja9e&5Je%2&a,e9 ,i 34 , nstead# it ma$es !etter sense that Christians ori"inated it# as a *perhaps tauntin"+ explanation for the %ewsP misfortune. 'hey could choose %amesP death rather than %esusP crucifixion !ecause the idea of an historical %esus had not yet developed. $=@ Co2,d Jo&eph2& haBe 8%itte the Ja9e&5Je%2&a,e9 ,i 34 , 'he idea contradicts %osephusP own account of %amesP death# and would have impelled much fuller treatment of %ames had he caused such a dramatic effect. 'hrou"hout his writin"s# %osephus identifies the causes of the %ewish :ar as the revolutionary movement and the actions of the "overnor (lorus. (or his "entile readers# he would have !een unli$ely to portray the 9omans and his patron (lavians as pawns in the %ewish &odPs retri!utive purposes.

$$@ ?a& the%e a d2a, i te%po,atio of the 7%othe% of Je&2&! %efe%e ce4 , f the lost reference# with its N!rother of %esusO phrase is necessarily a Christian insertion# this increases the li$elihood that the phrase in Antiquities 21 is an insertion as well. 'he !est postulation is a process of imitation from the lost reference to Antiquities 21. *And see No. A a!ove.+ $+@ Lo&i 0 the ,o&t %efe%e ce , 9ather than removal# su""est that the manuscript lines which contained the lost reference died out# while other lines never had it. 'he final ar"ument a"ainst the authenticity of Antiquities 21 will have to wait until the authenticity of Antiquities 14 has !een addressed# !ut if the relia!ility of an ori"inal core to the 'estimonium (lavianum can !e seriously undermined# or even re5ected# the relia!ility of the reference to %esus in Antiquities 21 must collapse with it. G(or later use: lin$ to summary ar"uments relatin" to Antiquities of the Jews 14.A.A.H ;

III( JESUS IN ANTI:UITIES OF THE JE?S $> The 5Testimonium Fla*ianum6

One of the main ar"uments used to support an ori"inal reference to %esus !ehind the o!vious Christian para"raph which now stands in Antiquities 14:A:A *14:>Af in the alternate num!erin" system+ is the assumed relia!ility of the passin" reference to %esus in Antiquities 21. %osephus# so the claim "oes# would not have inserted such a s$eletal reference to %esus# the one identifyin" %ames as his !rother# if he had not "iven the reader some fuller account of him at some previous point. 'he throwaway line# it is said# implies some previous reference. thin$ have sufficiently undercut the force of that ar"ument !y demonstratin" that the Antiquities 21 reference cannot !e 5ud"ed relia!le at all# much less Nundisputed.O 'his leaves Antiquities 14.A.A to stand or fall on its own merits. Now# it is a curious fact that older "enerations of scholars had no trou!le dismissin" this entire passa"e as a Christian construction. Charles &ui"ne!ert# for example# in his Jesus *@' 17/># p.18# ori"inally pu!lished 17AA+# calls it Na pure Christian for"ery.O 0efore him# <ardner# ?arnac$ and Schurer# alon" with others# declared it entirely spurious. 'oday# most serious scholars have decided the passa"e is a mix: ori"inal parts ru!!in" shoulders with later Christian additions. ?ere is the famous passa"eD$nown as the N'estimonium (lavianumODin full# with the widely,re"arded additions in !old# thou"h there is some variation on this amon" scholars *such as whether the phrase in s3uare !rac$ets ou"ht to !e re"arded as authentic+:

NNow a!out this time there lived %esus a wise man# if o e o20ht to ca,, hi9 a

9a # for he was a doer of wonderful wor$s# Ga teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasureH. ?e won over many %ews and many of the &ree$s. He 8a& the .e&&iah@ :hen Pilate# upon hearin" him accused !y men of the hi"hest standin" amon" us# had condemned him to !e crucified# those who in the first place had come to love him did not forsa$e him. Fo% he appea%ed to the9 a,iBe a0ai o the thi%d da1* a& the ho,1 p%ophet& had p%edicted the&e a d 9a 1 othe% 8o de%f2, thi 0& a7o2t hi9@ And the tri!e of the Christians# so called after him# continues to the present day.O t is o!vious to all that %osephus would never have said that %esus Nwas the )essiah#O or that Nhe appeared alive to them a"ain on the third day#O since this would mean he su!scri!ed to Christian doctrine. And Nif one ou"ht to call him a manO is clearly a Christian reverential remar$. Opinion is mixed a!out the Qteacher of the truthP reference *thou"h Cir!y and some of the authorities he draws on# such as %ohn P. )eier# A /arginal Jew# accept it+. Some have su""ested that instead of the !latant Nhe was the )essiah#O %osephus may have written that Nhe was !elieved to !e the )essiah.O will not trou!le to repeat the o!vious ar"uments a"ainst the authenticity of the !latantly Christian phrases# or their existence much !efore @use!ius# who in the early =th century 3uotes the passa"e in full in his Ecclesiastical %istory *1.11.8+. 'he silence of all Christian commentators !efore him a!out such thin"s *indeed a!out the entire 'estimonium+ is clear evidence of this. Some have even su""ested that @use!ius himself was the interpolator. 'his !rea$down of authentic and inauthentic parts is not# from the point of view of the text itself# unreasona!le. 0ut it assumes# one# that there was an historical %esus to whom %osephus could have referred# and two# that %osephus could have penned even the reduced version. As for the first point# much ar"umentation starts from the preconceived position that# well# %osephus tal$s a!out other messianic a"itators# li$e %udas the &alilean and 'heudas the ma"ician# so it seems reasona!le to thin$ he would have made some reference to %esus# who for him would have fallen into the same cate"ory. *Ceep that last point in mind for laterM+ (rom the mythicist point of view# of course# this is !e""in" the 3uestion# and since# as maintained at the !e"innin" of this article# stron" evidence exists outside %osephus to indicate that no human %esus stood at the !e"innin" of the Christian movement# then the 'estimonium can validly !e 3uestioned in its entirety# without such preconceptions. <etPs loo$ at the ostensi!ly "enuine passa"e as it is commonly distilled from the later composite. Pll use )eierPs reconstruction from A /arginal Jew *thou"h not its translation+:
NNo8 a7o2t thi& ti9e the%e ,iBed Je&2& a 8i&e 9a * fo% he 8a& a doe% of

8o de%f2, 8o%3& a d a teache% of &2ch 9e a& %eceiBe the t%2th 8ith

p,ea&2%e@ He 8o oBe% 9a 1 Je8& a d 9a 1 of the G%ee3&@ ?he Pi,ate* 2po hea%i 0 hi9 acc2&ed 71 9e of the hi0he&t &ta di 0 a9o 0 2&* had co de9 ed hi9 to 7e c%2cified* tho&e 8ho i the fi%&t p,ace had co9e to ,oBe hi9 did ot fo%&a3e hi9@ A d the t%i7e of the Ch%i&tia &* &o ca,,ed afte% hi9* co ti 2e& to the p%e&e t da1@!

The Content of the Testimonium Fla*ianum

$)@ Jo&epha ph%a&e& a d Boca72,a%1 i the Te&ti9o i29 , 'he first ar"ument usually put forward !y defenders of this Nori"inalO is that it is full of phrases and voca!ulary characteristic of %osephus. NNow a!out this time . . .O is a common expression6 %osephus uses Nwise manO of Solomon and Ianiel. 'he Nwonderful wor$sO is the same expression as that applied to @lisha. And Ntri!eO as a description of the Christians is used for the %ewish NraceO and other "roups. Such words identify these sections of the 'estimonium as ori"inal and authentic to %osephus. Naturally# the su""estion has !een made that such features are deli!erately used !y the Christian interpolator to ma$e his passa"e loo$ authentic. Since the o!5ect of the exercise is to fool the reader into thin$in" that this is so# it is hardly unreasona!leDand certainly not Nmore than a little silly#O as Cir!y la!els itDto su""est such an explanation. &ui"ne!ert *p.18+ says: N t may !e admitted that the style of %osephus has !een cleverly imitated# a not very difficult matter.O A copyist transcri!in" %osephus for months on end would not have to wor$ very hard to effect such an imitationDindeed# it mi"ht almost come second nature. t is further o!5ected that the clearly Christian phrases contain no such distin"uishin" %osephan voca!ulary# !ut this is hardly surprisin". :hen the interpolator is constructin" those elements for which %osephus elsewhere contains similar ideas# such as Nwise manO and Ntri!eO in the sense of a "roup# he has precedents to draw on. 0ut when he "ets to Nrisin" on the third day#O this is a uni3uely Christian idea. 'he rest of the ac$nowled"ed Christian parts donPt offer much in the way of opportunities for %osephan characteristics# either. As for Nreceivin" the truth#O havenPt chec$ed thorou"hly# !ut somehow dou!t that the down,to,earth and pra"matic mind of %osephus ever turned its attention# much less its expectation# to uncoverin" such a thin". Cir!y su""ests that in view of the QeruditionP re3uired to construct this false passa"e# it does not s3uare with the naivete em!odied in includin" the No!viously !o"usO phrase# Nhe was the )essiah.O 0ut as have indicated# a copyist wor$in" for a lon" time with the texts does not need to !e NeruditeO to perform a moderately successful imitation# and the latter is 3uite compati!le with naivete. ndeed# naivete was a standard characteristic of all the early (athers. 'he learned historian @use!ius# after all# as well as every Christian commentator for the next 1A centuries# accepted un3uestionin"ly the entire 'estimonium (lavianum# alon"

with its declaration that %esus Nwas the )essiah.O Of course# they swallowed a lot worse than that. On the other hand# one could speculate# as Cir!y does# that the interpolator actually wrote Nhe was !elieved to !e the )essiah#O which survives in %eromePs version and amid a more rewor$ed Ara!ic recension. Cir!y is pro!a!ly ri"ht in not !ein" a!le to envision a Christian copyist waterin" down the pure phrase# thou"h he ta$es the %erome version as part of the %osephus ori"inal. 'he naivete would then !e the responsi!ility of a later sta"e of revision# !y a scri!e who couldnPt let the non,committal earlier phrase stand. 'hus would say that the standard o!5ections to the 'estimonium !ein" a total Christian construction# !ased on the style and intention of the writin"# are definitely inconclusive. $C@ The &ho%t eAte t of the Te&ti9o i29 , Another standard ar"ument is that if a Christian had constructed this passa"e entirely# he would not have limited himself to somethin" so short to descri!e the career of his Savior. 'his can easily !e disposed of# for the same ar"ument would have to apply to the one who supposedly added the extra elements to the presumed ori"inal. :hy didn-t he ma$e them lon"er; 'he situation is not the same as the one dealt with earlier# where any $ind of insertion lon"er than a phrase or so couldnPt have !een fitted into the Antiquities 21 passa"e a!out %amesP death. ?ere we have a di"ressional para"raph which interrupts the flow of the context in any case# so no impediment stood in the way of a scri!e enlar"in" on a %osephus ori"inal# to whatever extent he wished. So why #i#n7t the one who constructed the entire 'estimonium indul"e himself at "reater len"th; donPt presume to $now. Perhaps he was runnin" out of ener"y *or li"ht+ at the end of a lon" day. Perhaps it was his last codex sheet and the shop didnPt reopen until )onday. )y facetiousness is desi"ned simply to point out# a"ain# those mundane circumstances that may accompany any aspect of an historical en3uiry# ones we cannot hope to uncover and whose existence always stands in dan"er of !ein" lost si"ht of. 'he o!5ection# therefore# is at !est inconclusive. $'@ I te%%2pti 0 co teAt& , &. A. :ells and others have ar"ued that the continuity of the flan$in" passa"es wor$s !est when no passa"e a!out %esus intervenes. 'he final thou"ht of the previous para"raph flows naturally into the words of the one followin"# whereas the openin" of the latter para"raph does not fit as a follow,up to the closin" sentence of the 'estimonium. 'his ar"ument is somewhat tempered !y the fact that since the ancients had no concept of footnotes# di"ressional material had to !e inserted into the main text# as there was nowhere else to put it. ?owever# one mi"ht as$ whether the 'estimonium should !e considered di"ressional material# since it continues with the theme of PilatePs activities and

a!out various woes which !efall the %ews. One mi"ht also su""est that# di"ression or no# once %osephus had written it# his openin" words in the su!se3uent para"raph ou"ht to have reflected# rather than i"nored# the para"raph on %esus. $D@ ?hat did Jo&eph2& 3 o8 a7o2t Ch%i&tia it14 , Supporters of the Qauthentic coreP position point out that the reconstructed passa"e contains virtually no &ospel elements6 in fact# there are features which would tend to !e contradictory of the &ospels. 'he miracles are only Nwonderful wor$sODno healin"s# exorcisms or feats over nature are specified. 'he reference to the %ews in Nupon hearin" him accused !y men of the hi"hest standin" amon" us#O doesnPt reflect the ra!id &ospel portrayal of the evil %ewish esta!lishment which hounded and plotted a"ainst %esus# arrested him and shoved him under an unwillin" PilatePs nose demandin" the death penalty. n fact# the text identifies Pilate as the one who Nhad condemned him to the cross.O @ven the part a!out Nwinnin" over many &ree$sO is not strictly !ased on the &ospels# which have no account of %esus actually preachin" to non,%ews6 and althou"h he occasionally reacts favora!ly to "entiles who approach him# he can also for!id his disciples to "o to NswineO. Such o!servations are certainly le"itimate. 0ut they can in many cases !e diluted. At the end of )atthew# %esus directs his apostles to preach to all nations# and an interpolator mi"ht incorporate the spirit of this into the reference to winnin" over &ree$s. @specially so in a "entile community where# re"ardless of what the &ospels did or did not say# it is almost inevita!le that a tradition would have developed that %esus had preached to and won over "entiles. Nor is it a fore"one conclusion that a scri!e would primarily !ase his interpolation on his familiarity with the &ospels and their specific details# especially as he is tryin" to mimic %osephusP own tone and voca!ulary. ?e would hardly thin$ it appropriate to have %osephus paint his own countrymen as wretchedly as do the &ospels. ?e is also insertin" his passa"e into an account !y %osephus of the misfortunes suffered !y the innocent %ewish people under a reprehensi!le Pilate# so a passa"e which whitewashed the "overnor and demonized the %ews in the death of %esus# such as we find in the &ospels# would stic$ out li$e a sore thum!. n any case# even in the &ospels it is Pilate who sends %esus to the cross# not the %ews# so there is no QinaccuracyP in the reference as it stands. n this connection# another pro!lem arises in tryin" to accept the reconstructed ori"inal. :ithout the NChristian insertions#O %osephus says nothin" a!out a reputed resurrection of %esus. %ames ?. Charlesworth# as 3uoted !y Cir!y# claims that the removed sections ma$e for an ori"inal whose flow# "rammatically and otherwise# is Nimproved and smootherO *Jesus 2ithin Ju#aism# p.7A,7=+ and he specifically points to the flan$in" elements of the crucifixion insertion# thus offerin" no possi!ility that %osephus had included a reference# perhaps dero"atory# to a !elief in ChristPs resurrection.

0ut how li$ely is it that %osephus *a+ would have !een i"norant of this element of Christian !elief# or *!+ would have left it out; %osephus may not himself have $nown any &ospels# !ut if he $new that %esus was a Nwise manO who had tau"ht# if he $new he had performed Nwonderful wor$s#O if he $new the !asic facts surroundin" the crucifixion# it is inconceiva!le that he would have !een i"norant of the central claim of the Christian faith# that this man crucified !y Pilate had risen from his "rave three days later. @ven the Nnon,Christian sourceO posited !y )eier would hardly have left this out. And if %osephus felt impelled to include for his readers any report a!out a messianic pretender who had "iven rise to a Ntri!eO that persisted Nto this day#O he would surely have wanted to inform them of this tri!ePs outlandish !elief that their founder had wal$ed out of his tom!. can thin$ of no motivation for %osephus to leave it out purposely. Simply reportin" it would not have cast any aspersions on his own credulity. 'he supposed a!sence of this element seriously undermines the standard reconstruction of a %osephus ori"inal.

Witness to the Testimonium Fla*ianum

$E@ Si,e ce o the Te&ti9o i29 71 the Ch2%ch Fathe%& , 0efore addressin" the !i""est pro!lem of all# will consider the 3uestion of the lac$ of Christian witness to any version of the 'estimonium (lavianum !efore @use!ius in the early =th century. Iefenders of a %osephus ori"inal realize that this re3uires explanation. (or it is a surprisin" fact that not a sin"le writer !efore @use!ius# not %ustin# renaeus# Clement of Alexandria# not Ori"en# 'ertullian# the prolific Cyprian and Arno!ius# alon" with many others# in all their discussions of how the outside world viewed Christians and the fi"ure of %esus# in all their defences a"ainst pa"an hostility# nevertheless ma$e not the sli"htest reference to %osephusP account of this Nwise manO who had Nperformed many wonderful wor$s#O who Nwon over many %ews and "entiles#O who was perhaps a Nteacher of the truth#O one who was denounced !y the *lon" despised+ %ewish leaders# crucified !y Pilate !ut who en5oyed so much love and support from his followers that their num!ers "rew and their devotion had Ncontinued to this day.O t must !e admitted that this silence is incredi!le. t is# per se# a damnin" piece of evidence a"ainst the claim that any part of the 'estimonium (lavianum could have !een present !efore @use!ius in Christian copies of the wor$s of %osephus. 'he common re5oinder that there was no need for all these Christian commentators to ma$e reference to a description which contained all the a!ove elements voiced !y a non,Christian is inherently implausi!le. A momentPs un!iased consideration must show that. 'here is so much in this NneutralO account that Christians could have Nput a spin onO in defense of themselves and %esus# so much that could have "iven succor# support and even ammunition in much of what the Christian apolo"ists were attemptin" to do in their writin". Ori"en alone spent a 3uarter of a million words contendin" a"ainst Celsus# drawin" on all sorts of proofs and

witnesses to the ar"uments he ma$es# includin" referrin" to %osephus# yet we are to !elieve that not once did a sin"le element of this almost "lowin" description of %esus !y the famous %ewish historian commend itself for mention. 'o "ive one specific example. n 0oo$ # chapters =># >8 and >4 of Contra Celsum# Ori"en reports that Celsus had dispara"ed the miracles of %esus# accusin" %esus of havin" learned his wonder,wor$in" tric$s from the @"yptians. Ori"en counters this !y claimin" that %esusP deeds were superior to anythin" contained in the &ree$ myths# and that %esus performed his miracles in order to win people over to his commenda!le ethical teachin"s# somethin" no @"yptian tric$ster could emulate. An appeal here to the declaration !y %osephus# a respected %ewish historian# that %esus had !een a .wise man. who performed .wonderful wor$s#. would have served to place %esus and his miracles in the favora!le li"ht in which Ori"en is tryin" to cast them. 'hus %eff <owder-s claim that the ori"inal account of %osephus Nwould not have !een very usefulO *Uhttp:LLwww.infidels.or"Lli!raryLmodernL5effWlowderL5uryLchap/.htmlV+ does not commend itself. 'here was so little comment to !e found in any pa"an writin" a!out Christianity which was not condemnatory *consider 'acitusP Nhaters of man$indO+# derisive *<ucianPs ridicule of Christian !eliefs in The 1eath of &eregrinus+# or adversarial *CelsusP attac$ on Christianity which prompted half a lifetimePs wor$ !y Ori"en on a re!uttal+# challen"e anyone to read throu"h the reconstructed %osephus ori"inal and say that they can seriously entertain the notion that every sin"le Christian apolo"ist for over two centuries would re"ard not a sin"le element of it as worthy of mention. ndeed# if memory hasnPt failed me# the reconstructed 'estimonium would pro!a!ly !e the sole example of a non,ne"ative comment on Christianity !y an outsider until ConstantinePs conversion. And yet we are to assume that it held no use or appeal; As in the case of the New 'estament epistles- silence on a human %esus# it is the totality of the silence that is most damnin"# for it must posit that the su""ested motives for the silence are to !e applied not to one individual *somethin" conceiva!le+ !ut to every sin"le individual in many situations# many places# and over a lon" period of time. Such thin"s donPt happen in history and "o a"ainst common sense. %ohn )eier *A /arginal Jew# p.87+ offers a 3uestiona!le explanation for the !lan$et silence. )eierPs ar"ument is that the Christian (athers would reco"nize that %osephusP testimony showed that he didnPt accept %esus as )essiah and Son of &od# or !elieved that he had risen from the dead6 it testified to %osephusP un!elief and was therefore avoided. Should the apolo"ists have found this surprisin" or disconcertin" in a non,Christian; 'hey dealt with un!elief every day# faced it head on# tried to counter and even win over the opponent. %ustinPs ma5or wor$# 1ialogue with the Jew Trypho# did 5ust that. Ori"en# in his own tac$lin" of Celsus#

didnPt shy away from criticizin" %osephus for not identifyin" the ri"ht personPs death as the reason for %erusalemPs fall# or from pointin" out that he didnPt !elieve in %esus as the )essiah. t hardly seems that the silence on Antiquities 14.A.A !y all !efore @use!ius can !e explained !y such a line of reasonin". And what of that latter statement !y Ori"en# that %osephus did not accept %esus as the Christ; t is often claimed that this constitutes an o!li3ue reference to an ori"inal 'estimonium which was silent on such a thin". 0ut rather than assume that %osephusP silence on the matter would impel Ori"enPs comment# we should loo$ for some positi-e statement in %osephus which mi"ht lead Ori"en to his conclusion. And in fact we have such a statement in Jewish 2ar >./.=# where %osephus declares that the %ewish messianic prophecies were really a!out the victorious emperor Bespasian. 'his statement alone would have !een sufficient to prompt Ori"enPs comment that %osephus did not !elieve in %esus as the )essiah.

Authorship of the Testimonium Fla*ianum

$>@ Co2,d Jo&eph2& haBe 8%itte the %eco &t%2cted Te&ti9o i294 , 'his leads me to the most si"nificant set of ar"uments a"ainst the validity of the reconstructed %osephus ori"inal. Could %osephus under any circumstances have written even the reduced version; %eff <owder admits in his essay that if %osephus had said anythin" overtly hostile a!out %esus or Christians# NOri"en would pro!a!ly have sin"led it out for re!u$e.O 'his o!servation is certainly valid# and it precludes any fall!ac$ position that %osephus could have had an entirely different reference to %esus# one that was hostile# in Antiquities 14.A.A# and that a Christian copyist removed it completely# replacin" it with the one we see now. t would seem# then# that %osephus had to wor$ within a very narrow window of expression to "ive us the situation we find# namely that no!ody mentions the passa"e one way or the other. 0ut we must as$# whatever would have led %osephus to express himself on %esus within such a fine ran"e: neither praisin" nor condemnin"# neither hostile nor friendly# !ut tiptoein" past the apolo"ists on a completely neutral# middle "roundDif we could even view the reconstructed passa"e in such a li"ht; (or the fact of the matter is# the whole tenor of the %osephan Nori"inalO #oes not ring true for JosephusM n the case of every other would,!e messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed !y the 9omans# he has nothin" !ut evil to say. ndeed# as Pve 3uoted a!ove# he condemns the whole movement of popular a"itators and orators as the !ane of the century# leadin" to the destruction of the 'emple# of the city# of the %ewish state. t is virtually impossi!le that he could ma$e some $ind of exception# some distinction for this N%esusO to whom he devotes so little space.

On what !asis would he do so; f %osephus had possessed an intimate $nowled"e of %esus# leadin" to some favora!le estimation of the man that was mar$edly different from his usual attitude toward such fi"ures# we would expect much more than the cursory account in Antiquities 14. 'he latter# in fact# amounts to little more than a !are summation of !asic &ospel elements. n any case# most commentators conclude that %osephus had little familiarity with Christianity# so such an explanation would have to !e discounted. :ould %ewish sources have provided a favora!le account of %esusP teachin"s or activities; ?ardly# and certainly not !y the 71s# when %ewish leaders were layin" anathemas on the Christians. %eff <owder raises the possi!ility that %osephusP information came from Nofficial 9oman records#O !ut such a record would hardly have presented %esus in any positive fashion# nor even a neutral one. :hy# then# would %osephus have made an exception for %esus; Iid he have reports of %esus- teachin"s# all of which he perceived as lauda!le; 'hat is difficult to envision. 0y the late 1st century# if we can 5ud"e !y the &ospels and even scholarly reconstructions of J# any commenda!le teachin"s of %esus were inextrica!ly mixed up with all sorts of inflammatory and su!versive pronouncements and prophecies of a revolutionary and apocalyptic nature *whether authentic to %esus or not+. 'he latter would have !een an expression of the very thin" %osephus hated and condemned in all the other popular and executed a"itators of the period. t would !e difficult to postulate a situation in which his $nowled"e of %esus the NteacherO could have !een so selective as to screen out the o!5ectiona!le elements that would have !een attached to him as well. @ven within the teachin"s which we today re"ard as commenda!le# includin" ones which critical scholars such as the %esus Seminar 5ud"e to !e authentic# there were Qcounter,cultureP sentiments which would have struc$ %osephus and his patrons as su!versive# thin"s li$e the poor inheritin" the earth *which implies the overthrow of esta!lished authority+# or pronouncements that openly condemned the %ewish leaders who cooperated with 9oman rule. 'hus we are 5ustified in concludin" that it is impossi!le that Josephus coul# ha-e referre# to Jesus as <a wise man.= :hen we "et to the phrase# N*he was+ a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure#O which Cir!y and )eier and even Crossan *The %istorical Jesus# p.A8A+ re"ard as authentic# the claim for authenticity !ecomes intolera!le# for how can anyone !elieve that %osephus would consider referrin" to a %esus to whom all the various Christian expressions and expectations were attached *includin" the destruction of the world+ as a Nteacher of the truthO; And what of the phrase Na doer of wonderful wor$sO; Or even translatin" this as the less starry,eyed Nstartlin" wor$sO; 'his in %osephusP mind would put %esus into the same class as those popular a"itators li$e 'heudas the ma"ician who promised to divide the river %ordan so that his followers could cross over it# or the unnamed @"yptian who claimed that his command would $noc$ down the walls of

%erusalem. :ould Christian or any other reports filter out the healin"s *which %osephus mi"ht conceiva!ly accept as !elieva!le or laudatory+ from %esusP reputed miracles over nature# or his &ospel prophecy that the walls of the 'emple would tum!le; 'he very presence in the 'estimonium of the phrase .wonderful wor$s. indicates that some of %osephusP report would have !een !ased on traditions a!out miracle, wor$in" !y %esus. 'his rules out a Qprivate pipelineP to some authentic picture of an enli"htened sa"e. nstead# it opens the door to the possi!ility of a wide ran"e of reports a!out dramatic and even revolutionary acts !y %esus# such as we find in !oth J and the &ospels: wor$in" miracles in front of lar"e crowds# challen"in" and condemnin" the reli"ious authorities# or causin" an uproar in the 'emple. * f the story of the cleansin" of the 'emple were factual# such an incident would not have escaped %osephus $nowled"e# nor his reportin".+ (actual or not# if such traditions were circulatin" a!out %esus# this from %osephusP point of view would have !rou"ht him into association with the Sealotic re!els# !andits and "eneral crazies who had infested the land of srael prior to the "reat :ar and were most responsi!le for its devastatin" ruin. Could the historian have presented this %esus in even a .neutral. way# could he have re"arded him in any other li"ht than 5ust another detesta!le fanatic; 'a$en as a whole# a"ain to 5ud"e !y the ChristiansP own record in the &ospels and even some of the epistles# Nthe tri!e of the ChristiansO toward the end of the 1st century was still a stron"ly apocalyptic one# one that expected the overthrow of the empire and esta!lished authority and the transformation of the world into &odPs Cin"dom. Nothin" in %osephusP situation would have led him to divorce this prevailin" Christian outloo$ from his 5ud"ment of the movementPs founder. 'hose fundamental apocalyptic doctrines it held# which Christians themselves would have declared were part of %esusP own pronouncements# could not possi!ly have escaped him if he so much as $new of the sectPs existence. 'he report in 'acitus# the persecution witnessed in PlinyPs letter to 'ra5an# the !ir*at ha>minim *curse on the heretics+ of the %ewish syna"o"ues after %amnia# all testify to the hostility and vilification which Christian sects endured at the time. On what !asis would %osephus !uc$ such a trend; 'hrou"h what channels would he receive a favora!le report on %esus that could override all this and that he would accept; @ven if he were conversant with Christians# would he !e inclined to choose their word over the prevailin" opinionDa word which# in any case# would hardly filter out all the thin"s %osephus would inevita!ly react a"ainst; :ould he imply approval or even a touch of admiration for this Christian tri!e !y sayin" that Nthose who had loved him previously did not cease to do so;O once referred to the distilled 'estimonium as still Ntoo warm and snu""lyO and stand !y that evaluation.

$G@ Did Jo&eph2& d%a8 o o,d pe%&o a, 9e9o%ie&4 , <est it occur to the reader that there mi"ht !e an QoutP in all this# let me address it here. Could %osephus have set aside all the ne"ative traditions *from his point of view+ that were current a!out %esus and the Christians# and relied instead on personal memories from his pre, :ar days in %udea and &alilee; )i"ht we presume that the idealized picture painted !y those modern scholars who have excavated a N"enuineO %esus from J1 is essentially correct# and that %esus had !een an enli"htened# Cynic,style sa"e who never !reathed a word a!out apocalyptic destruction or the Son of )an; :as %osephusP evaluation !ased on first,hand# remem!ered contact with early Christians who had followed such a sa"e; *?e was !orn in Palestine in A8 C@.+ have never encountered anyone in this de!ate who alle"es that %osephus had such contact with or $nowled"e of earliest Christianity. n fact# not havin" !een aware of paintin" themselves into the corner have outlined# scholars have re5ected such a thin". A"ain# ri"htly so. 'hose personal memories would have had to !e very stron" and very positive for %osephus to have trusted them and allowed them to override all the ne"ativity which !ecame attached to the Christian name. 'his would hardly have !een li$ely. %osephus was of a priestly family# and he never "ives any indication of havin" had contact with Christian circles. One can even assume that there would have !een some ne"ativity felt toward %esus and Christians in the %ewish circles he did move in# as witness *from Paul+ the persecution certain early Christian communities were su!5ected to. n addition# with all due respect to the %esus Seminar and various new 3uesters# that %esus could actually have !een such a para"on as to create this stron"# positive and lastin" impression in one who was not a follower and who had never met him personally# is also hi"hly unli$ely. Nor is it li$ely that the Christian movement in the /1s# letPs say# when %osephus mi"ht have formed such an impression# was free of all o!5ectiona!le elements. 'he para"on picture# in any case# is compromised !y the phrase Ndoer of wonderful wor$s#O which automatically !rin"s in elements which %osephus would have re"arded as ne"ative. 0ut the overridin" consideration is that if %osephus were drawin" on such early# personal memories# he would !e presentin" a picture of %esus which went a"ainst the "eneral view of Christianity !y outsiders at the time he was writin"# as well as a"ainst the principles and outloo$ he elsewhere expresses toward those thin"s which would have !een associated with the Christian sect and founder. f# un#er any circumstances# %osephus were ma$in" this $ind of exception for %esus# he would hardly have done so without a word of explanation# without an account of how this particular executed messianic a"itator was unli$e the rest. And it would have had to !e in decidedly positive terms which a Christian would never have deleted or i"nored. ?e would have spent more than three NneutralO sentences on the man.

+=@ Jo&eph2& 8a& 8%iti 0 fo% the E&ta7,i&h9e t , 'he final point to !e stressed is that %osephus was writin" under 9oman and (lavian sponsorship. ?is readers were primarily 9oman# some %ewish. ?e certainly was not writin" for Christians. :hat reason would he have had for !ein"# in )eierPs phrase# Npurposely am!i"uousO; ?e had nothin" to fear from Christians# and no reason to consider their sensi!ilities. 9e"ardless of what he may have thou"ht a!out the character of Pilate# if Pilate had executed %esus# then there had to !eDin official 9oman and (lavian eyesDa 5ustification for doin" so. Crucifixion was a punishment for re!els# and %esusP crucifixion would have !een seen as part of 9omePs on"oin" campai"n to deal with the pro!lems of a trou!led time and province. Fet how# in the reconstructed 'estimonium# does %osephus deal with the event; 'he words and their context "ive the impression that it was due to Nan accusation made !y men of the hi"hest standin" amon" us#O the execution of a wise and loved man# a teacher of truth who was o!viously innocentDa &ospel ima"e if there ever was one. :as Pilate there!y duped; 'he 9oman "overnor forced to do somethin" reprehensi!le; 'here could !e no !asis on which %osephus would !e led to interpret the event this way# much less put it in writin" for a 9oman audience. A"ain# there would have !een no channel throu"h which such a 5ud"ment would have come to him that he would have accepted. And no way he could have avoided explainin" himself if he did. n his 4ife *>/LA>A+# %osephus declares that the emperor 'itus himself Naffixed his own si"nature to them Gcopies of the ori"inal &ree$ edition of the Jewish 2arH and "ave orders for their pu!lication.O %osephus wrote at the !ehest of his (lavian patrons. 'heir motives were his motives. 'he official 9oman outloo$ was lar"ely his own outloo$# at least where the :ar and the events which led up to it were concerned. 'he 'estimonium (lavianum# in any version# ma$es no sense within such a %osephan world picture. 'hus )eierPs claim *A /arginal Jew# p.>A+ that# Nthis summary description of %esus is conceiva!le in the mouth of a %ew who is not openly hostile to himO cannot !e accepted and contravenes any rational standard of historical criticism. t may not !e easy to uncover the mind or situation of the Christian interpolator who composed this passa"e in its entirety# with its curious amal"am of understated# off, the,&ospel,mar$# imitative elements. 0ut it is far easier to postulate such a thin"# than it is to impute to a mind we essentially do $now# in circumstances we do understand# a piece of writin" which would contravene every principle %osephus stood for# every view he elsewhere expresses# every influence we can safely say must have operated upon him. ; Supplement: from the text of The Jesus &u((le: 1i# Christianity 5egin 2ith a

/ythical Christ? +$@ The Ga,i,ea B&@ the Pa2,i e Je&2& 5 n any location outside Palestine and Syria# all the evidence concernin" Christianity in the latter first century relates to the cultic expression of the Pauline type. ?ere %esus is the cosmic Son of &od# creator and sustainer of the universe# source of salvation throu"h his death and resurrection. 'hat evidence# as we have seen from writin"s li$e the pseudo,Pauline epistles# 1 Clement# 9evelation# the Shepherd of ?ermas# the Odes of Solomon# has nothin" to say a!out the &alilean side of thin"s# a!out the ministry as portrayed in the &ospelsDnor a!out %esusP death under Pilate. f we can assume that %osephus# writin" in the 71s# would reflect views of %esus current in 9ome at that time# how do we explain the fact that his .ori"inal. 'estimonium says nothin" a!out the cultic Christ of Paul# the redemptive Son of &od who was an exalted divinity; Such cosmic descriptions and claims a!out the Son as are found in the first century epistles would have !een a part of the Christian ethos which %osephus was exposed to. *Paul addresses the 9oman con"re"ation in those terms# indicatin" that this is the way 9oman Christians re"arded %esus. 1 Clement# written in 9ome and contemporary with %osephus# spea$s in similar terms a!out the spiritual Christ.+ f Christians were "oin" a!out tal$in" of their founder in terms familiar to us from the epistles# this elevation of a crucified criminal to the very status of divine Son of the &od of A!raham would hardly have !een i"nored !y %osephus. (or %osephus was intimately concerned with his %ewish herita"e# its traditions and !eliefs. 'he natural affront to %ewish sensi!ilities in the fundamental Christian doctrine a!out %esus# its !lasphemous association of a human man with &od and the !estowin" on him of all &odPs divine titles# would have received the closest attention from the historian# and inevita!ly his condemnation. Nothin" in the .authentic. 'estimonium !reathes a whisper of the Pauline Son of &od. nstead# it sets its si"hts no hi"her than the &ospel,li$e picture of a remar$a!le sa"e who was crucified and "ave rise to a new movement. :ith the addition of the resurrection# this is essentially )ar$Ps amal"amation of J with a passion narrative. 'his a!sence of any dimension relatin" to the cultic Christ is further evidence that the 'estimonium is a product of second or third century Christian outloo$# one in which the &ospel picture predominates# while the earlier cosmic Christ has receded into the shadows !ehind it. n re"ard to the %esus of J# there are two ways of loo$in" at the 3uestion. One is that if %osephus is writin" historyDhowever !rieflyDand the %esus he is addressin" was the founder *under whatever name+ of a movement as extensive as the record ma$es it out to !e# from &alilee throu"h Syria# this should !e reflected in what %osephus says. f %esus had inau"urated a widespread counter,culture movement which prophesied the end of the world and delivered an innovative

philosophy of life# and %osephus $new of him in that roleDeven if not to the extent of $nowin" what was ."enuine. to this teacherDthat role should have !een reflected in the ori"inal 'estimonium. nstead# the %esus descri!ed there is simply an isolated fi"ure# a .wise man. and a miracle wor$er. Apart from the difficulties in re"ardin" this as %osephusP own evaluation# such an account would scarcely have done 5ustice to the man who had presuma!ly set so much in motion. * n the a!sence of a $nown founder fi"ure# %osephusP silence on the su!5ect of the movement itself may !e understanda!le.+ ; 'he authenticity of the reconstructed 'estimonium (lavianum in Antiquities 14.A.A is untena!le. ?istorical N$nowled"eO is !ased not on mathematical proof# !ut on wei"ht of pro!a!ility produced !y the documentary or archaeolo"ical record and the rational deductions we can ma$e from it. f the wei"ht of the ar"uments offered in this article is to !e dismissed without thorou"h consideration# then dissenters to the mythicist position are not dealin" in un!iased historical evaluation. At the very least# it must !e ac$nowled"ed that %osephus collapses as relia!le evidence for the existence of an historical %esus. ; ?ere in summary *followin" the num!ered headin"s in the text+ is the !alance of the ar"ument# relatin" to Antiquities of the Jews 14.A.A: G<in$ to previous summary ar"uments relatin" to Antiquities of the Jews 21.7.1.H $)@ Jo&epha ph%a&e& a d Boca72,a%1 i the Te&ti9o i29 , t is not unreasona!le that an interpolator would try *and successfully+ to mimic %osephus !y usin" lan"ua"e characteristic of him. Nor is it incompati!le with the naivete of introducin" !latant Christian doctrine# althou"h the direct Nhe was the )essiahO may come from a second sta"e of interpolation. $C@ The &ho%t eAte t of the Te&ti9o i29 , f it is claimed that a Christian constructin" the entire passa"e would have waxed a!out %esus at "reater len"th# so would someone addin" elements to it# since the para"raph was a di"ression from the context anyway. :e canPt $now why the interpolator $ept it so short. $'@ I te%%2pti 0 co teAt& , 'his traditional ar"ument a"ainst authenticity# that the 'estimonium interrupts a natural flow of wordin" and content from the precedin" to the followin" para"raphs# is admittedly not foolproof# since di"ressions within the text were unavoida!le and too$ the place of modern footnotes. Fet the para"raph on %esus is not entirely a di"ression# and its presence should have !een reflected in the ad5acent wordin"s of the flan$in" passa"es. $D@ ?hat did Jo&eph2& 3 o8 a7o2t Ch%i&tia it14 , f the reconstructed passa"e contains no &ospel elements *which is certainly de!ata!le+# considerations of

context could !e one reason. And since the Nori"inalO would have contained no reference to the resurrection# which %osephus would hardly have !een i"norant of and deli!erately left out# its authenticity is undermined. $E@ Si,e ce o the Te&ti9o i29 71 the Ch2%ch Fathe%& , 'he silence on the 'estimonium !y all !efore @use!ius cannot !e ade3uately explained# since even its so,called neutral content would have !een appealin" and useful to the apolo"ists. 'he totality of the silence is damnin". Ori"enPs declaration that %osephus did not !elieve in %esus as the )essiah could have !een prompted !y the view he read in Jewish 2ar >./.= that Bespasian had !een the o!5ect of the messianic prophecies. $>@ Co2,d Jo&eph2& haBe 8%itte the %eco &t%2cted Te&ti9o i294 , 'he reconstructed ori"inal cannot !e assi"ned to %osephus# since it contradicts what he says a!out all the other messianic a"itators. 'here is no source or !asis from which he would have made an exception for %esus# and the apocalyptic and revolutionary elements associated with %esus and the Christian movement# as well as the miracle traditions# would have precluded it. %osephus would have had no reason to !uc$ the current hostile attitude toward Christians. $G@ Did Jo&eph2& d%a8 o o,d pe%&o a, 9e9o%ie&4 , 'here is no evidence that %osephus in his youth had any contact with Christians# and unli$ely that it would have produced convictions a!out %esus to override all the ne"ativity attached to him later. f such a thin" had happened# he would have created a much lon"er# more positive description of %esus. +=@ Jo&eph2& 8a& 8%iti 0 fo% the E&ta7,i&h9e t , ?is 9oman audience and (lavian sponsors would not have accepted that %esus had !een crucified un5ustly# and certainly not without an explanation on %osephusP part. +$@ "S2pp,e9e t# The Ga,i,ea B&@ the Pa2,i e Je&2& 5 @ven thou"h Christians in 9ome would have held a !elief in %esus as the cosmic Son of &od# a crucified man elevated to divinity# %osephus ma$es no mention of such a doctrine# one he as a %ew would have found !lasphemous and o!5ectiona!le# and another ne"ative mar$ a"ainst %esus. nstead# the 'estimonium reflects a later &ospel outloo$# in which the Pauline type of Christ has receded into the !ac$"round. %osephus is also silent on %esus as the founder of a widespread *as we see from the record+ Cin"dom of &od preachin" movement.
D Effect o A ti<2itie& += , As promised at the end of Part

# if the a!ove ar"uments seriously undermine the feasi!ility of acceptin" any core of the 'estimonium in Antiquities 14 as authentic to %osephus# this has fatal repercussions on the other reference to %esus in Antiquities 21. 9eversin" a common ar"ument# if %osephus did not deal with %esus earlier in the text# it is unli$ely that he could have authored the phrase attached to %ames# Nthe !rother of %esus# the one called *the+ ChristO# since Nthe oneO would have implied a previous reference. 'he reader

would !e left wonderin" 5ust who this %esus was. *'he Christian interpolator was not so perceptive.+ G<in$ to previous summary ar"uments relatin" to Antiquities of the Jews 21.7.1.H G<in$ to NoverviewO ndexH

Final Conclusion
Althou"h it may well !e that we owe %osephusP survival throu"h the )iddle A"es to the un$nown Christian interpolator who "ave us the 'estimonium# it is time to release %osephus from his Christian captivityDand from the !onds of those who continue to claim him as a witness to the existence of an historical %esus. 0ut if the wei"ht of ar"ument would impel us to ac$nowled"e that %osephus seems to have made no reference at all to %esus# what implications do we draw from this; ?ere is a %ewish historian who was !orn and "rew up in %udea shortly after PilatePs tumultous "overnorship# with its presumed crucifixion of a %ewish sa"e and wonder wor$er# a man whose followers claimed had risen from the dead and who "ave rise to a vital new reli"ious sect. ?ere is an historian who remem!ers and records in his wor$ with sta""erin" efficiency and in voluminous detail the events and personalities and socio,political su!tleties of ei"ht decades and more. Can we !elieve that %osephus would have !een i"norant of this teachin" revolutionary and the empire,wide movement he produced# or that for some unfathoma!le reason he chose to omit %esus from his chronicles; Iestroyin" the credi!ility of the %osephus references inevita!ly places a very stron" nail in the coffin of the historical %esus.

Supplementary Article No. 11

RE6ELATION
The Go&pe, Acco%di 0 to the P%ophet Joh I( JESUS CHRIST IN THE /OOH OF RE6ELATION -n a &ar3 Aegean Isle
(rom Palestine and Syria there were several routes one could follow to reach the capital of the 9oman @mpire. One was !y sea alon" the lower coast of Asia )inor and into the Ae"ean. At a point partway up toward @phesus lay the small island of Patmos. 'o this isolated spot sometime in the latter first century# a prophet named %ohn# who .had preached &od-s word and !orne my testimony to %esus#. was !anished !y the 9oman authorities. ?ere he underwent certain visionary

experiences and penned the most famous apocalypse of all# now residin" as the final document in the Christian canon# the 0oo$ of 9evelation. 'hat this prophet and writer was the Apostle %ohn found in the &ospels is an ancient view no lon"er held. <iterary analysis shows as well that he was not the same author as any of those who wrote the %ohannine epistles or the (ourth &ospel *%ohn+. :hether he is to !e identified with the so,called .%ohn the @lder. *or Seer+ whose tom! is found at @phesus and who may !e the elder referred to !y Papias# is un$nown. :hat form of Christianity is represented !y 9evelation; 'he !oo$ inha!its the fevered world of %ewish apocalyptic. %ohn owes a hu"e de!t to the Old 'estament 0oo$ of Ianiel# whose fantastic visions of the @nd,time he has !orrowed and enlar"ed upon# reachin" new horrific and punitive hei"hts. %ohn has also ta$en the famous fi"ure from the vision of Ianiel 8# the .one li$e a son of man#. and if 9evelation was written in >4 or >7 C@# as some su""est# this would !e the earliest $nown adaptation of the Ianielic fi"ure in either %ewish or Christian writin"s *outside of the reconstructed J# if the J2 stratum of prophetic sayin"s were to !e dated earlier+. 0ut 9evelation also inha!its the world of Christ !elief# for the fi"ure of .%esus Christ. is central# and to him have !een attached a num!er of sym!olic motifs and titles !elon"in" to %ewish and Christian messianic expectation.

An E/clusi*ely 1ea*enly Christ

Fet what sort of Christ is this; 9evelation opens with these words: .'his is the revelation of %esus Christ# which &od "ave to him to show his servants what must soon ta$e place# and he Gi.e.# ChristH sent it throu"h his an"el to his servant %ohn who# tellin" everythin" he saw# has !orne witness to the word of &od and the testimony of %esus Christ.. *1:1,2+ &od ma$es a revelation to %esus# who in turn communicates it throu"h an an"el to the prophet %ohn. %ohn# in settin" it all down in writin"# !ears witness to &od-s revelation and to the one transmittin" it. 'his is as close as 9evelation "ets to any idea of a teachin" %esusDwhich is to say# not at all. 'he fi"ure of Christ communicates entirely throu"h spiritual channels# and with the exception of A:A *see !elow+# nothin" that this fi"ure says !ears any resem!lance to the words of %esus as spo$en in the &ospels. (or the author of 9evelation# Christ is an entirely heavenly fi"ure. As 1:1,2 ma$es clear# Christ is a spiritual intermediary !etween &od and humanity. 'here is little if anythin" in 9evelation to su""est that the writer views his Christ as havin" !een incarnated to earth. :e $now he envisions him as havin" died and risen# for Christ is said to have !een .dead and came to life a"ain. *2:4+. 0ut the circumstances of this dyin" and risin" are never "iven. @ven the concept of .risin". may !e too stron"# for no idea of a !odily resurrection is ever introduced.

Such thin"s !elon" to the world of the spirit and myth. %ohn-s Christ is e3uated with the .<am!#. one who was slain and has triumphed# a"ain without an earthly settin" specified. ?e is also e3uated with the Ianielic .one li$e a son of man.. 'hese are apocalyptic and messianic motifs lon"standin" in %ewish thou"ht6 in that milieu# !oth are heavenly fi"ures. 'he same exclusively heavenly venue is allotted to the child of chapter 12# !orn to the .woman ro!ed with the sun.. n the writer-s vision# this child is immediately snatched up to heaven !y &od to escape the clutches of a dra"on *XSatan+# there to await the outcome of "reat celestial upheavals. %ohn "ives no in$lin" that this child has under"one a life on earth *despite scholars- claims that this is .implied.+# much less that he had a teachin" ministry# or performed a sacrificial act# which latter is in any case allotted to the <am!. And the elements of the womanLchild vision are heavily dependent on hellenistic mytholo"y# ma$in" the identification of the child with %ohn-s Christ va"ue at !est. ?owever# the relationships !etween the various prophetic motifs and characters in 9evelation is "enerally a mur$y one# a feature which tends to !e characteristic of most apocalyptic writin"# and will return later to this point and to the woman and child of chapter 12.

A Pierced ,essiah
<et-s loo$ more closely at some of the thin"s said of Christ in 9evelation. Ioes 1:8 ma$e an allusion to %esus- &ospel prophecy *)ar$ 1A:2># 1=:>2 and parallels+ and to the historical crucifixion; .0ehold# he is comin" with the cloudsM @very eye shall see him# and amon" them those who pierced him6 and all the peoples of the world shall lament in remorse.. (or the source of these pronouncements we need loo$ no further than scripture. 'he clouds motif is lifted from Ianiel 8 whose .one li$e a son of man. comes with the clouds of heaven *8:1A+. 'he rest of the verse is a close adaptation of Sechariah 12:11!: .'hen they shall loo$ upon *me# on+ him whom they have pierced# and shall wail over him as over an only child# and shall "rieve for him !itterly as for a first,!orn son.. 'he identical 5uxtaposition in !oth documents of the two ideas of piercin" and "rievin" ma$es it certain that Sechariah is the source of 9evelation-s idea# not the story of %esus of Nazareth. 'here is# in fact# a lot to !e "leaned from this passa"e. (irst# we realize that we are once a"ain in a milieu of faith which has derived its inspiration and information from scripture. Christ and the features that have !een "iven to him are a product of the study of the sacred writin"s# not a record of history. Second# we are in a type of Christ !elief related to Paul-s antecedents# the more primitive circles he !uilt upon: these viewed Christ-s sacrifice not as a universal atonement# !ut as a paradi"matic experience mirrorin" srael-s own and

entailin" "uarantees of exaltation for the elect whom Christ represents. * -ll examine this idea of paradi"m shortly.+ 'he ori"inal passa"e in Sechariah# critical scholars are lar"ely a"reed *see the discussion in the Anchor 0i!le# @echariah# p.AA>,A=2# and %arper,s 5i!le Commentary# p.8/1: .Some reference to apparent persecution and resultin" mournin"# as that has !een caused !y the Iavidic house# is introduced in 12:11..+# alluded to somethin" now lost to us# in that the rulers in %erusalem# on the day of the <ord *.that day.+# will feel pity for someone they have previously persecuted and .pierced#. pro!a!ly a prophet# someone whom they shall "rieve over .as for a first,!orn son.. 0ut to a later a"e readin" it *they too would have lost si"ht of the ori"inal allusion+# this passa"e would have su""ested some pre"nant ideas. 'he ?e!rew actually has .they shall loo$ on me whom they have pierced.Dwhich later &ree$ translations -corrected- to .on him#. to !rin" it into line with the pronouns .him. in the rest of the verse. 'he ori"inal wordin" may have su""ested that the <ord was sayin" that he himself had !een the o!5ect of the piercin". :hile the Septua"int# in li"ht of this# seems to have chosen to interpret the ?e!rew ver! as meanin" .moc$. instead of .pierce. *for &od himself could hardly !e spo$en of as havin" !een pierced+# others# under the influence of current philosophical ideas# mi"ht have read into this a reference to a su!ordinate heavenly fi"ureDin fact# a .Son#. since the final phrase of the verse uses this very simile# .first,!orn son.. :ithout "oin" into all the possi!le niceties of interpretation which this verse could have !een su!5ected to in the hothouse of the period-s immersion in scripture# we can say that passa"es of the sort li$e Sechariah 12:11 could well have !een a principal source of 9evelation-s idea of the Christ who was pierced# the <am! who was slain. ndeed# such passa"es were pro!a!ly the source of the concept in early cultic Christianity that the spiritual Christ had !een crucified *in the spirit realm# to which scripture "ave a view+. saiah /A:8# interpreted messianically# told of the .sheep that was led to the slau"hter.. 'he sacrificial lam! was a sym!ol deeply im!edded in %ewish tradition# "oin" !ac$ throu"h countless Passovers to the @xodus le"end. As for the con3uerin" <am!# this too is a motif to !e found in %ewish apocalyptic# as reflected in the 'estament of %oseph *17:4+# part of the 'estament of the 'welve Patriarchs. *See "l# Testament &seu#epigrapha# ed. %. ?. Charlesworth# vol.1# p.42=.+

A Paradigm Without ,ercy

'hat the Christ of 9evelation plays a paradi"matic role is supported !y the !oo$ as a whole. n the openin" sections of my Supplementary Article No. 4: Christ As .)an.# discuss the essentials of myth in the ancient world and the principle of .paradi"m.. ?ere# heavenly savior fi"ures are seen to under"o experiences in the upper spiritual realm which parallel# and have parallel conse3uences for# those of

!elieversLinitiates on earth who are 5oined to them in sacramental ways. 'his is the concept which lay !ehind the &raeco,9oman mystery cults# of which early Christianity was a ?ellenistic,%ewish expression. 0ut in its -pre,Pauline- form *continuin" even after Paul+# this paradi"matic principle existed in its ori"inal -pure- state# one we see in 9evelation. :hereas Paul envisioned the possi!ility of somethin" resem!lin" a universal salvation# includin" the eventual conversion of all the %ews to Christ# no such merciful universalism is present in %ohn the prophet-s mind. Althou"h in 1:/ %ohn says that Christ .freed us from our sins with his life-s !lood#. this is not a universal salvation. 'he .us#. as he "oes on to say# is a select "roup# .a royal house who will serve as the priest of his &od and (ather.. 'he peoples of the world who .lament in remorse. are not saved# despite some commentatorsattempts to twist the writer-s words throu"hout the !oo$ into such an implication. n fact# the implication that does come across in 9evelation is the parallel !etween the slain <am!# whom the world will re"ret havin" pierced# and the persecuted !eliever# the sufferin" elect of srael whom the people of the world have also pierced. 'hese latter people will definitely rue the mistreatment they have meted out when they are visited !y war# slau"hter and assorted destruction accompanyin" the end of the world. As the hymn to &od in 11:18,14 says: .'he day of retri!ution has come. . . . Now is the time for recompense to thy servants the prophets# to thy dedicated people# and all who honor thy name.. 'his .recompense. is part of the parallel !etween the <am! and the sufferin" elect# for !oth will have shared in a future "lorification which is a direct conse3uence of their own sufferin". 'he paean to the <am! in /:12 says: .:orthy is the <am!# the <am! that was slain# to receive all power and wealth# wisdom and mi"ht# honor and "lory and praise.. (irst of all# "iven the writer-s dependence on Ianiel# it is certain that he intends this in the same way that the .one li$e a son of man. is promised such thin"s in Ianiel 8# where he stands for the saints of srael. 'hey shall# li$e him# receive from &od .soverei"nty and "lory and $in"ly power . . . so that all people and nations of every lan"ua"e should serve him. *Ian. 8:1=+. 0ut the advance that 9evelation-s <am! has made over the Ianielic fi"ure is that he is worthy of his reward !ecause he was slain# an idea the writer of Ianiel never thou"ht of# or at least did not voice. 'he parallel extends to the people of lon" sufferin" srael or her pious elect# persecuted and slain !y the "odless and immoral 0a!ylon# which for the prophet and his contemporaries stands for 9ome and her predecessors in con3uest. <i$e the <am!# they too are worthy to !e rescued out of their slau"hter# to receive their destined "lory and rule over the nations in &od-s new Cin"dom. n the classic paradi"matic parallel# !oth parties# the heavenly and earthly counterparts# must pass throu"h the same cruci!le of sufferin" as a prelude to their

"lorification6 and Christ# as the .first,!orn of the dead. *1:/+# is a "uarantee for the risin" of the ri"hteous. 'here is an interestin" evolution to the idea of paradi"m lyin" !ehind 9evelation-s picture. One of the fundamental ideas of %ewish apocalyptic is that triumph is achieved throu"h sufferin" and apparent defeat. 'his reflects a rationalization of the %ewish experience: -:e have the only &od. ?e must !e intendin" "reat thin"s for us. And yet we have suffered and endured su!5u"ation. 'his can only !e !ecause of our own sins and !ecause such su!5u"ation is the necessary avenue to the inevita!le exaltation.'he earliest expression in %ewish thou"ht of a parallel relatin" to the 3uestion of deliverance centered on the le"end of the @xodus. As &od once delivered us out of slavery from @"ypt# the thin$in" went# he will a"ain do the same. 'he @xodus was the "reat past paradi"m for the future# and was no dou!t lar"ely createdDor em!ellished# followin" the 0a!ylonian @xileDto serve that role. *Present need always creates past myth.+ t was re3uired in order to "uarantee the future parallel. n the @xodus# too# a sacrifice played a part. 'he slau"hter of the Paschal lam! protected the ?e!rews from &od-s final persuasive pla"ue on @"ypt# the destruction of the first,!orn. 'he Passover lam! !ecame a sym!ol of a $ind of redemptive sacrifice. Once Platonic,type philosophies too$ hold# however# the idea that history contained the paradi"m for future hopes evolved to include the concept that heaven itself contained it# as reflected in the scene in Ianiel 8. Scripture was now read accordin"ly. 'he )essiah# from an expected human deliverer to !e raised up !y &od at the @nd,time# !ecame for some interpreters a heavenly !ein" now operatin" in the spiritual realm# a divine counterpart to the earthly elect,in,waitin". 'he <am! !ecame one of the sym!ols of this heavenly Christ. ?is sacrifice and triumph in the spirit world *such as is told of in the christolo"ical hymnDpro!a!ly pre,PaulineDof Philippians 2:>,11+ "uaranteed the redemption of the elect on earth whom he represented. 'his may well have !een the ori"inal seminal concept which produced Christianity. 'he destiny of those whom the <am! champions is clear from the prayer to &od in /:7,11 and is portrayed as the ultimate result of the <am!-s sacrifice: .(or thou Gthe <am!H wast slain and !y thy !lood didst purchase for &od men of every tri!e and lan"ua"e# people and nation6 thou hast made of them a royal house# to serve our &od as priests6 and they shall rei"n upon the earth.. 'his final idea is the centerpiece of apocalyptic: the reversal of the a"e,old order# the reven"e of the oppressed and deprived. 'he apparent .universalism. of these verses is no more than a hyper!olic nod to those non,%ews who have adopted the %ewish &od and o!servance. *Alternatively# thou"h most commentators re"ard

%ohn-s milieu as %ewish,Christian# these communities may perhaps have !een lar"ely "entile# ori"inally "rowin" out of an attachment to %ewish circles and thorou"hly im!ued with their ideas and herita"e6 this would !e a way of validatin" themselves as co, or new inheritors of the %ewish promise.+ 'here is no exaltation or salvation for the world as a whole. Nor should we expect such a thin". 'he view of the paradi"matic heavenly fi"ure conforms to the %ewsview of themselves and reflects their feelin"s and motivations# a response to centuries of domination !y others who did not ac$nowled"e the true &od. 'o expect that the %ews would view their own sufferin" as a necessary prelude to the salvation of their "odless su!5u"ators is totally unrealisticDwhich has not prevented modern scholars from tryin" to see thin"s this way. 'his is why there can !e in 9evelation none of the later# more syncretistic Christian concept of Atonement *the product of a $ind of %ewish and "entile chemical reaction+: no vicarious sufferin" out of love to expiate the sins of man$ind. 'he theory of sacrifice in 9evelation is that of the so,called .)acca!ean understandin". which is reflected in the late apocryphal document = )acca!ees: that the !lood of %ewish martyrs had a merit which &od could apply to the nation as a whole. 'he !lood of the <am! had merit !efore &od and there!y freed the elect from their sins *1:/+# the sins which had led to their sufferin". t purified them from the impediment which had stood in the way of their destined elevation !y &od. 'he <am!-s sacrifice would also have had an @xodus understandin"# in that his !lood purchased their freedom from slavery# as had the Passover lam!. No dou!t another passa"e from scripture had an influence here as well: saiah /A# which spea$s of the sufferin" servant who .!ore our sufferin"s on himself#. and on whom .the <ord laid . . . the "uilt of us all.. Scholars have only recently come to accept that for %ews# such passa"es as saiah /A did not si"nify any concept of vicarious sufferin" for the world at lar"e. *See ?arry Orlins$y# The .o>Calle# .er-ant of the 4or# in .econ# +saiah# and )orna I. ?oo$er# Jesus an# the .er-ant.+ <ove for the !roader world# or mercy# are features not to !e found in 9evelation# on the part of Christ or anyone else. Scholars who try to read into this document ideas too sophisticated and enli"htened for its milieu and its writer# are en"a"ed in wishful interpretation. %ohn Sweet *0e-elation# p.12>+ uses the phrase .redemptive love#. !ut nowhere is the <am!-s act styled in any such terms. ?ow Sweet can say thin"s li$e .the <am!-s death . . . *!rou"ht+ &od to man and man to &od. in the face of passa"es which trumpet .the ven"eance of the <am!. *>:1>+ and the cry of dead souls to .aven"e our !lood on the inha!itants of the earth. *>:11+ is a mystery. Sweet may also !e "uilty of the most self,ri"hteous "roaner in the recent history of New 'estament commentary: .'he spirit of the cry Gfor ven"eanceH seems re"retta!ly pre,Christian.M

'he hymns in praise of the <am! in chapter / say nothin" of love# !ut concentrate exclusively on power and rule# and the fate of humanity as a whole is one of unmiti"ated and merciless destruction. 'his is sectarianism at its most ra!id. 'he prophet has admittedly thrown salvation open to non,%ews who have .passed throu"h the "reat ordeal. *8:1=+# !ut this seems to si"nify nothin" more than "entiles who have converted to the sect-s !eliefs and stand !y their faith until the end6 they share in the !enefits of the <am!-s !lood and are part of the elect. 'hey# too# shall rei"n.

II( SILENCE ON THE GOSPEL JESUS ,essianic and Apocalyptic ,otifs

'he writer re"ularly refers to .!earin" testimony to %esus.. n 17:11 he declares that those who do so are inspired li$e the prophets. ?ere once a"ain is that universal motif found in all early Christian expression: "ivin" witness to# in the sense of declarin" one-s faith in somethin"6 a faith# as this verse ma$es clear# !ased on inspiration# the wor$ of the Spirit. 'here is no su""estion in 9evelation of apostolic tradition# no information from or a!out %esus passed on throu"h a human chain "oin" !ac$ to the ministry of %esus himself. Cnowled"e of the spiritual Christ comes throu"h spiritual channels. 'his prophet is ur"in" upon his readers his own vision a!out the comin" end of the world. ?e would have had every reason to appeal to the tradition that %esus himself had made predictions of an apocalyptic nature durin" his ministry. ndeed# he would have had every reason to 3uote them. ?e could surely have made use of some of the prophecies recorded in )ar$ 1A and )atthew 2=,2/. *Any "eneral similarity in content is due to !oth !ein" derived from the common thou"ht,pool of %ewish apocalyptic.+ 'he one reference to anythin" resem!lin" %esus- words in the &ospels# namely# a!out the thief comin" at an unexpected moment *A:A and 1>:1/+# includes no su""estion that %esus had spo$en somethin" li$e it durin" an earthly ministry. n A:A the writer puts the idea into the mouth of the visionary Christ dictatin" the letter to the church at Sardis6 the accompanyin" directive to .remem!er what you received and heard. refers to the current teachin" "iven !y prophets li$e %ohn. <ater# in 1>:1/# the warnin" seems to !e placed in the mouth of &od# or is an author-s aside. 'he sayin" was pro!a!ly common in the eschatolo"ical repertoire of the day. No hint is "iven anywhere that %esus himself durin" an earthly life had made such pronouncements a!out the end of the world. *:e mi"ht note that the two references to the .thief. ima"e to !e found in the New 'estament epistles# 1 'hessalonians /:2 and 2 Peter A:11# similarly ma$e no identification of the sayin" with an earthly teachin" %esus.+

As scholars have pointed out# the lan"ua"e throu"hout %ohn-s vision is entirely that of the Old 'estament in its epiphanies *appearances+ of divine fi"ures to humans. Christ-s first words to the prophet are: .Io not !e afraid. am the (irst and the <ast# and am the <ivin" One6 for was dead and now am alive for evermore.. *1:18,146 cf. 22:1A+ 'here is no sense here of a &ospel !ac$"round# no implication that this <ivin" One had previously revealed himself to a "eneration of people in an earthly incarnation. 'he death and renewed life he spea$s of have the rin" of the mytholo"ical# not historical events under"one !y a human person. 'he .(irst and the <ast. is drawn from a ?ellenistic title "iven to the ultimate Ieity. 'he fact that %esus uses it of himself *and %ohn also places it in &od-s mouth in 1:4+ shows that he is spea$in" as part of the &odhead# fully identified with the (ather. 'he Christ who dictates the proclamations to the seven churches is a wrathful# thunderin"# mystic,laden fi"ure# dispensin" promises of reward and punishment li$e an Oriental despot. (rom the %esus mee$ and mild of the &ospels# who sacrifices himself selflessly for the salvation of the world# he is li"ht,years away. n the first scene in heaven# an elder declares the <am! worthy to !rea$ open the scroll with the seven seals. n what terms does this elder choose to descri!e the fi"ure of the <am!; Enfortunately# not !y anythin" that would clearly identify him with the &ospel %esus. ?e is .the <ion from the tri!e of %udah# the root of Iavid. */:/+. 'hese are messianic titles !ased on scripture *e.".# &enesis =7:7 and saiah 11:1+# illustratin" yet a"ain that the fi"ure of Christ has !een derived from the sacred writin"s# even if some Christian interpretation could ma$e him 3uite different from the )essiah of traditional expectation. :e mi"ht note that when Paul# at the openin" of 9omans# ma$es the first of only two references to the .fleshly. side of %esus- nature# he too chooses this element derived from scripture# that &od-s son is .of Iavid-s stoc$.. *(or a detailed interpretation of such passa"es# see Supplementary Article No. 4# Christ As .)an.# section .+ 'his traditional desi"nation of the )essiah was so firmly entrenched in %ewish thou"ht that it had to form part of the picture of him# re"ardless of whether Paul-s and %ohn-s Christ was now seen as one who moved entirely in the spiritual realm. *'he lowest celestial sphere and the demonic powers who controlled it were considered part of the realm of .flesh#. and Christ .entered flesh. when he too$ on the spiritual e3uivalent of human form and was crucified in that sphere. See Supplementary Article No. A: :ho Crucified %esus;# as well as Article No. 4.+ As discuss at len"th in Article No. 4# our modern minds mi"ht well wonder how an entirely spiritual !ein" could !e .of Iavid-s stoc$. or .from the tri!e of %udah#. !ut we have to realize that we no lon"er live in the thou"ht,world or the perceived universe of the ancients. (or minds li$e Paul and %ohn the prophet# not to mention most mystics and philosophers of the day# the material world they lived in was

only one dimension of reality# the o!serva!le half of a lar"er inte"rated whole whose other half was hidden from the senses. 'hat other half was referred to as the "enuine reality# the .intelli"i!le universe#. meanin" accessi!le to the intellect. t contained the hi"her parallels# the more perfect reflections of lower em!odiments on earth. (or a deity in that upper spiritual world to !e .of Iavid-s stoc$. was wholly conceiva!le# even if it was one of &od-s .mysteries. and $nowa!le only throu"h interpretation of and faith in scripture. 'he upper world determined and controlled the sensi!le half of thin"s# the .perceiva!le universe.. :hile for many the philosopher-s mind was the $ey to unloc$in" the door to that true reality# for others the avenue lay throu"h various reli"ious experiences and marvelous spiritual practices# such as spea$in" in ton"ues and under"oin" visionary 5ourneys into the upper realms. &od-s Spirit was seen as providin" revelation# and a!ove all# scripture in its coded writin"s contained &od-s messa"e a!out spiritual realities and heavenly processes. t may !e impossi!le for the modern mind to "et inside Paul-s or %ohn-s head# products of a lon",dead thou"ht system# !ut that a spiritual Christ in a spiritual realm who was in some way lin$ed to Iavid was a part of their lar"er world# can !e seen from the recordDwhen that record is divorced from later &ospel inventions whose presence cannot !e detected within it.

A .irth Without a $ife

Another resoundin" silence on the &ospel %esus was touched on earlier. n 12:1,># amid the "reat portents of the @nd,time drawn !y %ohn# we have the vision of the .woman ro!ed with the sun#. the woman who# threatened !y a "reat dra"on# "ives !irth to .a male child destined to rule all nations with an iron rod.. %ohn ma$es no attempt to inte"rate this vision into any traditions a!out %esus- earthly nativity# traditions which should surely have !een familiar !y the end of the first century# when 9evelation was pro!a!ly written. mmediately after the !irthDwhich is portrayed as a heavenly event# not an earthly oneDthe child is .snatched up to &od and his throne. and the mother flees into the wilderness. 'here is not so much as a nod to %esus- entire life on earthM <ater *12:1A+ another reference is made to this male child# and if one loo$s at this passa"e and compares it with the reference to the sacrificed <am! a few verses earlier *12:11+# one sees that no connection is made at this point !etween the <am! and the male child. 0esides# the !irth of the child seems to !e a future event# part of the writer-s vision# while the <am!-s slau"hter is already accomplished. Commentators have scram!led to explain all this discrepancy with the &ospel story and often end up ac$nowled"in" that the scene has nothin" to do with )ary and %esus# !ut reflects %ewish messianism mediated throu"h ?ellenistic mythical motifs. t relates to %ewish apocalyptic mytholo"y a!out the miraculous !irth of the )essiah# who simply !ides his time in heaven until the @nd. 'he vision spea$s

of the child-s escape from Satan# !ut it also em!odies fantastic details from the myth of sis and ?orus *or <eto and Apollo+# a!out the "oddess who flees with her new!orn son from a dra"on *'yphon+. Other interpreters relate the woman to @ve or to an ideal# "lorified srael. 0ut such commentators fail to carry these admissions to their lo"ical conclusion. ?ow can 9evelation !e a Christian document *in the orthodox sense+ if the child destined to rule all nations is not lin$ed with the sacrificed <am!; ?ow can a Christian writer present a picture of mother and )essiah which is so at odds with the story of %esus- !irth and life as it should have !een $nown to !elievers of his time; 'he conclusion has to !e that the author of 9evelation# whether we style him Christian or %ewish# has no $nowled"e of )ary or anythin" to do with the !irth of %esus. f he possessed such traditions as are familiar to us from the &ospels# they would inevita!ly have imposed themselves upon his craftin" of this scene involvin" the )essiah and his mother. :hatever the sectarian position which this document represents# it 5um!les its mythical motifs of child# )essiah# sacrificed <am! and the Ianielic .one li$e a son of man. with no su""estion that any concept or picture of %esus of Nazareth lies in the !ac$"round to unify them. &. 0easley,)urray# in his commentary on 9evelation *0e-elation# p.177f+# simply turns a !lind eye to the whole pro!lem. ?e notes that some interpreters deem it impossi!le that a Christian could have exalted %esus to heaven as soon as he was !orn# and so they ta$e the .!irth. of the child as sym!olizin" %esus- death and resurrection. 'his is !ad enou"h# !ut 0easley,)urray prefers a different explanation: that since the author .$new. that his readers would understand all which implicitly lay !ehind his deficient mytholo"ical drama# he was content to let it .stand for. the entire Christ event. *Sweet# op.cit.# p.178# appeals to a similar -explanation-.+ :hen anythin" can !e made to stand for whatever one wants to see in it# silence and contradiction o!viously evaporate as a difficultyM 0easley,)urray *p.211# n.1+ also points to the christolo"ical hymn of 1 'imothy A:1># which .passes strai"ht from the !irth of Christ to his resurrection#. as similarly containin" .no mention of the life and death of Christ.. Apparently# this silence .stands for. the same thin" as it does in 9evelation# providin" a comfortin" confirmation of the elements he and others insist on readin" into documents which have curiously left them out. One silence is used to support another silence# to"ether constitutin" -proof- of the thin" they are silent on: a "ood example of a common sort of New 'estament math.

The "-ne $i3e a Son of ,an"

9evelation-s use of the phrase .one li$e a son of man. shows that this writer could have $nown of no tradition that %esus on earth had referred to himself this way# for he uses it in its pristine form# drawn directly from Ianiel 86 he does not turn it into a title such as the &ospels do for %esus: .the Son of )an.. n 1=:1=# this fi"ure is

portrayed simply as an an"el# in a scene with .other an"els.. 'his an"el is ordered !y a second an"el *Sweet fusses over the 3uestion of whether it would !e proper for an an"el to "ive orders to Christ+ to harvest the earthDmeanin" its humanityD with a sharp scythe. Enli$e the earlier use of the term in 1:1A# it is difficult here to ma$e a lin$ !etween the .one li$e a son of man. and Christ# so that %ohn %. Collins *The Apocalyptic +magination# p.4A+ denies such a lin$ alto"ether# identifyin" him simply as an an"el# which is one of the interpretations sometimes made of the fi"ure in Ianiel 8. 'his lac$ of consistency# an unconcern for lo"ical coherence and relationships in the presentation of a variety of material which has !een put to"ether in chaotic fashion# is one of the hallmar$s of apocalyptic writin" as a "enre. 'hus# when we reach 17:11 and find yet another fi"ure who is descri!ed as .he who shall rule *the nations+ with an iron rod#. this time a 9ider referred to as .the :ord of &od. and seemin"ly to !e identified with the <am! *since !oth are .Cin" of $in"s and <ord of lords.+# we are unsure what relationship he !ears to the child of chapter 12# who is also said to hold the same destiny of iron rule. 'here are those who claim# "iven 9evelation-s apocalyptic nature 5ust descri!ed# one lac$in" lo"ic and consistency# that !oth the child and the an"elic .son of man. must !e thrown into the common pot# that all these varied visionary descriptions are different views of the Christ. t is 5ust that they have !een uncoordinated# their contradictions allowed to stand# their hod"e,pod"e inclusion simply for dramatic effect on the part of a writer whose palette contains colors from the entire spectrum of ancient mytholo"y and visionary ima"ery. )ay!e so. 0ut that this extrava"ant canvas can !e ali"ned with the &ospel %esus is extremely du!ious. ?ad all of these various motifs and ima"es !een derived from an historical fi"ure# that fi"ure would have imposed a sem!lance of unity and coordination on %ohn-s multi,faceted picture. As it is# the writer has pluc$ed an assortment of ideas from the mytholo"y of the day and pressed them into service for his end,of,the,world scenario# and !ecause these ideas related to a variety of speculations a!out the spiritual realm and the spiritual fi"ure some !elieved lay at the focus of @nd,time expectations# the lac$ of unity and ali"nment amon" these ideas was natural and created no pro!lem. t is only for us# who have since had an historical %esus added to the mix as the supposed o!5ect of all these manifestations# that a pro!lematic confusion exists.

Crucifi/ion in a (reat City

t is often claimed that 9evelation does contain one reference to a circumstance of %esus- historical life. n 11:1,1A the author incorporates what are pro!a!ly two earlier %ewish oracles ori"inally spo$en durin" the tri!ulations of the %ewish :ar. 'he first relates to the 'emple and the a!andonment of its outer court to the invadin" "entile. n the second# two prophets shall prophecy in the ?oly City and

then !e slain. . . . .'heir dead !odies will lie in the street of the "reat city# which is alle"orically called Sodom and @"ypt# where their <ord was crucified.. *11:4# 9SB translation+ s %ohn usin" these oracles literally# or only as a sym!olic representation *in a piece of writin" saturated with sym!olism+ of the people of &od !ein" re5ected and attac$ed !y the "odless world; As for verse 4-s ."reat city#. many commentators re"ard this as sym!olic# and not a literal reference to %erusalem. (or example# %ohn Sweet *op. cit.# p.148+ su""ests that it represents the social and political em!odiment of re!ellion a"ainst &od6 .its present location is 9ome.. P. @. ?u"hes *0e-elation: A Commentary# p.128+ ta$es it as denotin" .the worldwide structure of un!elief and defiance a"ainst &od.. &. A. Croedel *Augs!erg Commentary on 0e-elation# p. 22>+# while re"ardin" the city on one level as %erusalem# sees it .not as a "eo"raphical location !ut a sym!olic place#. representin" the immoral# idolatrous# oppressive world. t is# then# a sym!ol of the corruption personified !y "reat cities in "eneral# the "odless world .where their <ord was crucified.. 'his says no more than that the sacrifice of Christ was the responsi!ility of the forces of evil and those who re5ect the "ospel# a mystical concept which may have had no more historical su!stance than this in the mind of the writer. :e mi"ht also note that the clause .where their <ord was crucified. could !e ta$en as tied primarily to the .alle"orically called Sodom and @"ypt. *the &ree$ phrase is literally .spiritually called.+# and would thus !e a step removed from any literal material .city#. even were the latter to !e understood as %erusalem. O. S. :intermute# in a study of the Apocalypse of @li5ah *The "l# Testament &seu#epigrapha# vol. 1# p.8=4# note -w-+# o!serves that the term ."reat city. is fre3uently a pe5orative expression# and was most often applied to the metropolis of a detested enemy. Comparin" 9evelation# he admits that its author always uses the term to refer to 9ome. ?owever# he insists that the one exception is here in 11:4# .where it is used to descri!e the city in which the <ord was crucified.. 'his is a "ood example of the practice of denyin" the ac$nowled"ed evidence on the !asis of preconception. :intermute would no dou!t follow his ar"ument full circle and declare that !ecause the reference is to %erusalem# this proves the writer is referrin" to the historical %esus. As for the reference to the .twelve apostles of the <am!. whose names are inscri!ed on the twelve foundation stones of the New %erusalem *21:1=+# this is a mystic num!er and not identified with any historical fi"ures. 'his is indicated !y the context: the heavenly %erusalem possesses twelve "ates !earin" the names of the twelve tri!es of srael# and a city wall with twelve foundation stones6 upon these stones are inscri!ed .the names of the twelve apostles of the <am!.. *Such .apostles. could have !een envisioned as !ein" of the type of %ohn himself#

namely prophets of the spiritual Christ.+. t was pro!a!ly such sym!olic thin$in" which created the tradition that %esus had had twelve disciples durin" an earthly ministry. (inally# the reference to .the <ord-s Iay. *1:11+ can as easily !e to the %ewish Sa!!ath as to the later Christian Sunday# and commentators are in fact split as to its meanin".

Epilogue
Iespite the apolo"etic efforts of those see$in" to reha!ilitate this document for the modern mind# it is difficult to see 9evelation as anythin" more than a paroxysm of hate created !y a mind !orderin" on the psychotic. 'he early church lon" resisted placin" it in the developin" canon of inspired writin"s. %ohn the prophet has cast his spiritual Christ in his own 5oyless and ven"eful ima"e. 'he voice of this )essiah is his own# ready to punish for every sli"ht# every re5ection the prophet has suffered in his missionary wor$. 'he "roup of seven cities to whom proclamations are issued at the !e"innin" of the !oo$ are all located within a few days- 5ourney of each other in western Asia )inor and undou!tedly represent the circle of %ohn-s preachin" activity. 'hat all Christian prophets of %ohn-s day were 3uite so fulminatin" and vindictive is perhaps dou!tful# !ut the wor$ should "ive us a "ood picture of Christ !elief in certain circles *%ewish,Christian;+ of that period and "eo"raphical location. :hile some favor the year >4 or >7 as the date of 9evelation-s composition# !efore the %ewish :ar reached its destructive climax# most scholars date the !oo$ in the mid, 71s. 'his is pro!a!ly the !etter date# if only !ecause the earlier one presumes that %ohn# from his exile on Patmos# was conversant with on"oin" events in Palestine and was influenced !y them# whereas no Palestinian focus is evident in the !oo$. Other reasons for datin" the writin" some time after the %ewish :ar include the use of .0a!ylon. for 9ome# an alle"orical epithet which li$ely too$ a little time after 81 C@ to !e applied to the modern,day destroyer of %erusalem and the 'emple6 plus the presence of allusions to the le"end that Nero was not dead and would return with a con3uerin" army from the east# an idea which# a"ain# is unli$ely to have arisen so soon after the emperor-s suicide in >4. 'hose !eliefs of %ohn and his preachin" circles envision a spiritual Christ in heaven who is .the <ivin" One#. &od-s intermediary channel. ?e is also the Ieity-s a"ent# whose tas$ is to en"ineer the events of the @nd,time. ?e has under"one sacrifice in the hi"her spiritual world# an event revealed in the sacred writin"s *thou"h 9evelation tells us far less a!out this than other early Christian writin"s+. 'hrou"h that sacrifice# Christ serves as the paradi"matic "uarantor of the faithful !eliever-s elevation to power in the new %erusalem when the @nd arrives. All these !eliefs fit perfectly into the varied and widespread reli"ious views of the time# evidenced in Christian circles !y the New 'estament epistles

themselves# a!out a mediator,Son who is an aspect of &od and his instrument of salvation *the name .%esus. has the meanin" of .Savior.+# one who operates in the spirit realm and is revealed throu"h inspiration and scripture. 'he arrival of this Christ %ohn declares to !e imminent. . am comin" 3uic$ly#. says %esus in the closin" lines# displayin" words and sentiments which "ive no impression that this will !e anythin" other than his first comin" to earth# the same as that conveyed !y all the other expressions of an anticipated Parousia throu"hout early Christian literature. .Come# <ord %esus#. %ohn calls with his final !reath# echoin" the Aramaic plea of Paul at the close of 1 Corinthians: .)arana tha D Come# O <ordM. (or a world that has $nown the new <ord Christ only throu"h visions and &od-s revelation of him in scripture lon"s finally to see him in person with its own eyes.