Josephus, Pilate and Paul: It’s Just a Matter of Time (Part 2)

Pontius Pilate by Way of Paul

Pontius Pilate is the chronological hook for the entire Christian creation of Jesus of Nazareth. It has always been assumed that
his presence in the gospels is proof of their historicity. Further, the chronology has been tied to the statement in the gospel of
Luke that Jesus began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). If Jesus began his ministry in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, and was then tried and executed under Pontius Pilate, Pilate must have been governor at
that time. According to a remark in Josephus, he ended his term with the death of Tiberius, which we know occurred in 37
AD. Another remark in Josephus says Pilate was there for ten years, so it is simple! Count backwards from 37 AD and you have
Pilate coming to Judea in 27 AD, and that gives you the window for the activities of Jesus, which began in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius, i.e. 29 AD. It all fits so beautifully![115] Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy.
The crucifixion of Jesus under the governorship of Pontius Pilate is considered a historical fact by almost universal consent.
Bible scholar Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about
him.[116] John Dominic Crossan says that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[117] Scholars may
agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, but they differ considerably on the reasons and even the exact date, not to mention
how historical the gospels are in respect of whether or not Jesus really knew he was going to be crucified. Discussing this
crucifixion of a Jesus under Pontius Pilate is a huge industry. It reminds me a lot of something that Egyptologist/archaeologist
Donald B. Redford once said about debates over the history of early Israel, and I think it applies here:
Scholars expended substantial effort on questions that they had failed to prove were valid questions at all. Under what dynasty did
Joseph rise to power? Who was the Pharaoh of the Oppression? Of the Exodus? Can we identify the princess who drew Moses out of
the river? Where did the Israelites make their exit from Egypt: via the Wady Tumilat or by a more northerly point?
One can appreciate the pointlessness of these questions if one poses similar questions of the Arthurian stories, without first submitting
the text to a critical evaluation. Who were the consuls of Rome when Arthur drew the sword from the stone? Where was Merlin born?
Can one seriously envisage a classical historian pondering whether it was Iarbas or Aeneas that was responsible for Dido’s suicide,
where exactly did Remus leap over the wall, what really happened to Romulus in the thunderstorm, and so forth?
In all these imagined cases none of the material initially prompting the questions has in any way undergone a prior evaluation as to
how historical it is! And any scholar who exempts any part of his sources from critical evaluation runs the risk of invalidating some or
all of his conclusions.
[118]
Please take careful note of Redford’s comment: “any scholar who exempts any part of his sources from critical evaluation runs
the risk of invalidating some or all of his conclusions.” The seriousness of this cannot be overstated. The vast majority of
biblical scholars are believers who claim to be analyzing and attempting to understand their theology, while most of their
efforts actually go toward developing, defending, and propagating it. This is true not only among those scholars who are
churchmen, but also, for the most part, among biblical scholars who are members of faculties of theology at universities. They
tend to forget that truly historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth are non-existent, in scientific history terms, and that their
views, long established by cultural norms in which they were born and trained, are not even strong enough to be considered
hypotheses.
One of the most historically egregious things that biblical scholars do is to derive hypothetical earlier texts from later ones,
and then treat these imaginary documents as if they were real sources. Proper procedure would be to begin with possible
sources that are proven to have existed before the gospels. To construct a hypothetical “early oral tradition” based on later
texts, or worse, a mythical “Q document”, is just simply circular reasoning. I think that many scholars engage in this kind of
faulty reasoning because they just cannot accept that there is nothing “behind” Paul that supports the gospels and Acts.
For a trained scholar to come right out and say that the existence of a Jewish wonder worker called Jesus, for whose historical
reality there is not a shred of evidence, is a more plausible hypothesis than a mythical cult figure created by human needs out
of the heroic elements of various individuals following a well-understood mythicization process, just boggles the mind.
From a strictly methodological point of view, biblical scholarship – as a rule – does not meet the minimum norms of historical
study. Indeed, there exists a logical possibility that a Jesus of Nazareth was real and lived and died at the place and time given
in the gospels, but serious and careful examination of the evidence does not give the statement even a minimum probability.
That, of course, does not mean that there was not somebody – or several somebodies – in the general vicinity of the place
and time doing something significant and whose lives and deeds were conflated following the standard mythicization process.
Part of this process included selecting an appropriate time and place for the setting of the mythical life of the cult figure. It
seems to me that the time of Pontius Pilate in Judea was selected for very important reasons regarding one element of the
composite character, and then the time period of another of the composite characters was deemed to be very important, and
the two were combined resulting in the dreadful chronological muddle we are left with. The problem was noticed fairly early
and required some very creative – though sometimes slight – editing of sources, which has only further exacerbated the
historical problem surrounding the Jesus question. But that doesn’t mean we ought to give up! I think that problem can be
solved.
A critical study of Josephus suggests Pontius Pilate was not the governor of Judea from 27 to 37 AD, nor was he even there for
ten years. I will argue that the text of Josephus indicates clearly that Pilate was sent to Judea upon the accession of Tiberius in
14/15 AD, and that he was there for only around five years probably – being censured at the time that Germanicus was sent
to straighten out the affairs of the Syrian province, and recalled in disgrace shortly after. Later Christian redactors/copyists of
the Josephan text noticed the problem – a conflict of chronologies – and sought to adjust things by adding governors to the
reign of Augustus and a couple of very small but well-placed text adjustments regarding the chronology, which forced the
Josephan text into at least partial congruence with the Christian timeline. The John the Baptist problem was not noticed in
time and thus slipped through the net.
There are actually more problems with the Josephan text than just the chronology of Pilate: As noted, Josephus was very busy
confabulating and writing what he thought was good copy for apologetic purposes. He wrote Wars not only to justify his
Flavian masters and scare the bejeebies out of anybody else who might think about rebelling against Rome, but also to depict
the Jews themselves as victims of ideologues and demagogues whom he refers to regularly as robbers, brigands, tyrants,
pirates, and so forth. What he is busy trying to cover up is the fact that he was one of them, only the strength of his
convictions was less than skin deep. Historian E. Mary Smallwood writes:
[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the
Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too
naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was
blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage,
and benefited for the rest of his days from his change of side.[119]
It reminds me of lines from Walter Scott’s Marmion: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Josephus was a deceiver and dissembler from the beginning. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of psychopathology will
instantly recognize the hallmarks of a con-artist. Nevertheless, he was constrained by a reading public to use historical facts
and events as the skeleton on which he fleshed out his apologetics, and it is this that makes him useful, as long as controls are
in place to deal with his deceptions and confabulations. We’ve already had a sample of the process I advocate in the
discussion of the Aretas, John the Baptist and Artabanus problems. As we have already seen in that debacle, we must
acknowledge that, since nobody else really knew what was going on in Palestine/Judea, Josephus was able to maneuver his
characters without disturbing the real history too much. He borrowed Vitellius briefly to have him make a foray that came to
nothing for ridiculous reasons, all the while making much of the relations between Rome and Palestine in his effort to
normalize Jews and Judaism in the face of the terrific anti-Judaism that arose after the Jewish War. There is a wide and deep
field for study of these issues and it is long past time that Josephus was subjected to intense scholarly scrutiny and criticism.
Historiography
When dealing with ancient texts, there are fairly standard and accepted ways of dating them. As Richard Pervo points out, the
most secure external way to do this is to find an explicit declaration by or within a datable author or text that such and such a
document exists. For example, in the case of the book of Acts, that evidence is provided by Irenaeus of Lyon, c. 180 AD. He
cited Acts as an authoritative book. Therefore, on firm historical grounds, that should be considered the terminus ad quem –
the latest possible date of composition. If you are looking for evidence within a document, you look for some datable piece of
information within the text, and try to make sure it is integral to the text and not a later addition. The earliest possible date –
the terminus a quo – can’t be earlier than the latest datable reference in the text. For example, this book couldn’t be dated
earlier than 2015, because it makes references to works and events from that year.
However, that’s not how biblical scholars operate. They push the terminus ad quem back as far as the earliest possible
allusions to the work in question, which suggest that an author or text may have been familiar with it. But such references
may or may not be actual allusions. It’s just as possible that the work in question took the material from the earlier source.
For example, in the case of Acts, the earliest possible allusion is found in the letter of Polycarp of Smyrna, c. 130–5 AD. The
question is whether Acts used Polycarp, or Polycarp used Acts. There’s some evidence that suggests Polycarp may have been
the author of Acts. Even if that is true, he could have written it either before or after his letter.
Pervo states the principles behind such an operation should be:
1) an explicit, methodologically sophisticated intertextual [the relationship between texts] method, 2) economy, which privileges
proposals that require fewer hypothetical sources, and 3) simplicity, where solutions that solve more problems than they create are
preferable.[120]
More often than not, that’s not how it works in biblical studies. NT scholars seem to make the rules up as needed, creatively in
pursuing allusions to the gospels in Paul where there are none, and all because they desperately need the gospel Jesus to have
existed before Paul.
Regarding Josephus and the author of Luke-Acts, Pervo notes:
One must decide either that Luke had access to another Jewish historian who nonetheless shared the biases and views of Josephus or
deem it highly probable that Luke had access to at least some of his writings. The question does not involve certain cribbed phrases but
a range of shared incidents, views, interests, and techniques. Again, Luke does not use Josephus as we would. One of the difficulties of
this hypothesis is that it removes from the board one author often utilized in comparisons with Luke, since, if Josephus served as one
source and a model, he can no longer constitute a parallel.[121]
In other words, you can’t declare that Luke-Acts is true because Josephus confirms some aspect of it, because the author
used Josephus as one of his inspirational sources.
In respect of provenance, or the location at which a document was written, Pervo remarks with some humor:
Previously it was noted that commentators rarely give the question of provenance an entire paragraph. One must now also consider
the questions of narrator and viewpoint. Although Dante’s Inferno is set in Hell and reveals a great deal of local knowledge, critics do
not presume that it was written there. An extensive discussion is not called for in the present case. It is quite likely that the
geographical perspective of the third-person narrator of Acts is that of the author, from the perspective of Ephesus and/or adjacent
regions. …
The Aegean region is without doubt the center of interest. The “we” narrator emerges in this region. …
It is from Ephesus that Acts looks toward the future, to post-Pauline conflicts. Ephesus is the navel of the Deuteropauline universe. For
this reason it is otiose to argue for Ephesus as the physical location of the author. Ephesus is the center of the Pauline past, the focus
of subsequent conflicts, and the hope of a Pauline future. Acts is engaged in the battle for Paul’s heritage in Asia.[122]
In short, Acts, the author of which was also the author/redactor of the gospel of Luke, is a relatively late production: early to
mid second century. Pervo dates it to ca. 115 AD.
Early “Christian” Documents
One of the problems of biblical scholarship and biblical understanding among the laity is that the books aren’t arranged in
chronological order. If early Christian texts were arranged in the proper order without exclusions, it would be possible for
people to read them and grow up without the late and prejudicially complete story of Matthew in first place, followed by the
earliest of the gospels, Mark, which comes off looking like a poor copy made by someone in a hurry. If the Pauline letters
were placed where they should be, first, it would be easy to see how the idea of a crucified savior was first bruited by Paul,
and then how other writings developed this idea, adding to it and expanding it as time went by.
If we understand at the outset that the letters of Paul are primary evidence, while later texts – primarily the gospels – are
secondary or worse, then we have good reason to notice that Paul himself never mentions Pilate. The name Pilate only occurs
in 1 Timothy 6:13, widely acknowledged to be inauthentic and written in the second century.
If Paul was converted only a few years after the execution of Jesus, then he certainly must have lived during the time of Pilate,
but he makes absolutely no reference to Pilate at all. How can this be? Pilate and his doings were so obnoxious that even
Philo, in Egypt, one of Paul’s near contemporaries, wrote about him! Philo, too, makes no reference to the crucifixion of a
messianic claimant under Pilate in his surviving works, though he does mention extrajudicial executions in large numbers. If
he wrote of such an event in his lost works, it doesn’t survive and we have no reference to it.
This evidence, in part, is used by the so-called Jesus mythicists to argue that the original conceptions of Jesus Christ were
mythological, not historical, in nature. I want briefly to review some of their ideas and show how this concept has tended to
obscure the fact that there was, indeed, a real Jesus – or several of them, in fact.
The late Alvar Ellegård, Swedish linguist and Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Gothenburg, wrote A Statistical
Method for Determining Authorship in 1962, which he later applied to early Christian texts in order to try to situate them in a
historical context and chronology. His methodology has been superseded in the intervening decades, so his results are not
perfect, but his work was a good effort to apply scientific historical methods to the problems of Christian historiography. His
book, Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ, is well worth reading if only for the excellent example he sets of how to
perform a genuinely scholarly and scientific study of “scripture”, even if his solution to the Jesus question is not entirely
satisfactory.
Naturally, the apologetics community went on the attack. One of the most entertaining things I read in criticism of his book
was this: “Alvar Ellegard offers a compiliation of questionable, unsupported speculations that are tied together into a single
thesis, that Jesus (as the title inferred) was not of the first century AD.” One may note the word “compiliation” – well,
anybody can make a spelling error – but it is followed by the erroneous use of the term “inferred” when “implied” would
have been correct. Sad to say, there are bibilical scholars whose hermeneutics and epistemology aren’t any more elegant than
the above example.
Ellegard was inspired to some considerable extent by the works of G. A. Wells. He writes:
I am certainly not original in holding that the gospel Jesus is largely fictional. The pilosophers of the Enlightenment took naturally to
that view, and it received strong support from the German theologian David F. Strauss, whose Leben Jesu (Strauss 1835) created a
sensation throughout Europe.[123] In our own century, prominent propounders of the thesis are Arthur Drews (Drews 1910-11), P. L.
Couchoud (Couchoud 1926) and G. A. Wells (Wells 1971, 1975, 1982). None of these three is a theologian. Drews was a professor of
philosophy, Couchoud a doctor of medicine turned Bible scholar, and Wells is a professor of German specializing in the history of ideas.
Of the three, Wells is by far the most conscientious scholar, with a thorough grasp of the present-day state of the art among the
theologians.[124]
Citing Burton Mack, he notes that the biblical scholar/theologian community has pretty much ignored this type of work,
especially that of Wells. It’s not a surprise that Wells’s work has been subjected to rather vehement criticism from biblical
scholars, some of whom accuse him of “anti-religious” intentions. One of their main criticisms is that Wells is working outside
his own field of expertise; that is, he is not a “New Testament expert.” That argument is patently absurd when one considers
that funding for becoming a “New Testament scholar” generally comes from religious institutions and requires belief; those
New Testament scholars who, in the course of their studies, lose their faith, often pay a high price professionally and
personally. It seems to me that being a “New Testament scholar” should exclude one from being a New Testament scholar! If
you believe in what you are studying, you’ve already lost any claim to scientific objectivity.
However, there is actually a growing list of scholars – a number of them of the biblically trained variety – who are coming to
similar conclusions and leaving the faith: Michael D. Goulder, Thomas L. Brodie, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Price, etc. But what is
equally interesting is the number of non-theologian scholars who have recently turned their attention to this issue, popularly
called the “Jesus Myth Theory”:
The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the hypothesis that Jesus of
Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the
gospels. The Christ myth theory contradicts the mainstream view in historical Jesus research, which accepts that there are events
described in the gospels that are not historical but which still assumes that the gospels are founded on a basic historical core.
Different proponents espouse slightly different versions of the Christ myth theory, but many proponents of the theory use a three-fold
argument first developed in the 19th century:
· that the New Testament has no historical value
· that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century
· that Christianity had pagan or mythical roots.[125]
The core tenets of the Christ myth theory trace their history back through the Enlightenment to the conflicts in the first Christian
centuries.
Despite this there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that a historical Jesus did live in that area and in
that time period. However, scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only
two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the
Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (although some argue that "the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical
existence"). Some scholars have made the case that there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, that there can
be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus.
The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France, and the works of Constantin
François Chassebœuf de Volney and Charles-François Dupuis. Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of
various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character.[126]
One of my own favorites is German scholar Bruno Bauer:
German Bruno Bauer, who taught at the University of Bonn, took Strauss' arguments further and became the first author to
systematically argue that Jesus did not exist. Bauer's writings presented the first use of the threefold argument used in much of myth
theory in later years (but often rediscovered independently). Bauer's three-fold arguments are that:
· The gospels were written many decades or even a century after Jesus' estimated year of death, by individuals who likely never
met Jesus, and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas.
· There are no surviving historic records about Jesus of Nazareth from any non-Jewish author until the second century, and
Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence.
· Certain gospel stories are similar to those of dying-and-rising gods, demigods (sons of gods), solar deities, saviors or other
divine men such as Horus, Mithra/Mithras, Prometheus, Dionysus, Osiris, Buddha, and Krishna, as well as Christ-like historical
figures like Apollonius of Tyana.
Bauer initially left open the question of whether an historical Jesus existed at all. Later, in A Critique of the Gospels and a History of
their Origin (1850–1851), Bauer argued that Jesus had not existed, and in 1877 in Christ and the Caesars he suggested that Christianity
was a synthesis of the Stoicism of Seneca the Younger and of the Jewish theology of Philo as developed by pro-Roman Jews such as
Josephus. Bauer's work was heavily criticized at the time; in 1839 he was removed from his position at the University of Bonn …[127]
Following Bauer, there were quite a number of eminent scholars joining the fray (for such it certainly was!); there were a few
embarrassments such as the shamanistic cult idea of John Allegro and assorted Jesus conspiracies that keep coming out, all of
which make the fatal move of thinking that the gospels and Acts have anything to do with history. When we finally get to G. A.
Wells, we find that his work has been acknowledged at least by a couple of eminent theologians: British theologian Kenneth
Grayston advised Christians to acknowledge the difficulties raised by Wells, and New Testament scholar Graham Stanton said
that Wells presented the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated arguments for the Christ myth theory. Burton Mack has also
called attention to Wells’ work.
Another of my favorites is Thomas L. Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen. Most of his work is in
OT criticism. When he was a student at University of Tübingen in the 1970s, his PhD dissertation on the quest for the
historical Abraham was rejected by his examiner Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) since it went against Catholic
theology. He was invited to finish his degree at Temple University in Philadelphia where he received his PhD summa cum
laude. In his book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the biblical accounts
of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek
and Roman literature. He doesn’t draw a final conclusion if Jesus was real or not, and in a 2012 online article, he strongly
rejects Bart Ehrman's misrepresentation of his views and the label "mythicist".
Speaking of Ehrman, he claims that the view that Jesus existed is held by “virtually every expert on the planet". Despite this
claim, he is forced to acknowledge that there are "a couple of bona fide scholars" who support the Christ myth theory. (He
expends a lot of energy discussing bona fides.)
Another of my favorites is Tom Brodie. He was a Dominican priest and his bona fides are unquestionable: he holds a PhD from
the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome and he is a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical
Institute in Limerick, Ireland. After years of academic work, he concluded that Jesus is mythical. See his Beyond the Quest for
the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery. In 2013, the Dominican order tried to muzzle Brodie, but it seems they finally
came to some agreement: Brodie stays in retirement, more or less, and they leave him alone. They can’t control his books
since they were not published by the church.
One of the most active new kids on the mythical Jesus block is Richard Carrier, who holds a doctorate in ancient history from
Columbia University. He wrote a deservedly rough review of Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist in 2012, and the debate has
been pretty hot on the internet ever since.
Earl Doherty’s encyclopedic writings on the topic should be mentioned here as well. His view is that “no historical Jesus
worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially
allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition."[128] He further
notes that none of the major Christian apologists before 180 AD, except for Justin and Aristides of Athens, included an account
of a historical Jesus in their defenses of Christianity. He further points out that Theophilus of Antioch (c. 163–182),
Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190), Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120–180), and Marcus Minucius Felix (writing around 150–270)
offer no indication that they believed in a historical figure crucified and resurrected, and that the name Jesus does not appear
in any of them.[129]
A thoroughly qualified New Testament scholar and former Baptist preacher, Robert Price, was a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a
group of writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus, and a member of the Jesus Project. He, too, thinks that
Christianity is a synthesis of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek myths and questions the existence of a living man behind the myths:
He writes that everyone who espouses the Christ myth theory bases their arguments on three key points:
· There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
· The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus;[130] all that can be
taken from the epistles, Price argues, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, lived in a heavenly realm (much as other
ancient gods, e.g. Horus), there died as a sacrifice for human sin, was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
· The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods; Price names Baal, Osiris, Attis,
Adonis, and Dumuzi/Tammuz as examples, all of which, he writes, survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods
and thereby influenced early Christianity. Price alleges that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.
Price argues that if critical methodology is applied with ruthless consistency, one is left in complete agnosticism regarding Jesus's
historicity: "There might have been a historical Jesus, but unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." Price
argues that "the varying dates are the residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less
recent history", citing accounts that have Jesus being crucified under Alexander Jannaeus (83 BCE) or in his 50s by Herod Agrippa I
under the rule of Claudius Caesar (41–54 CE).
Price points out: “What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears
too many hats in the Gospels—exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament
is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a
Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time. ¼ He writes at the
conclusion of his 2000 book Deconstructing Jesus: "There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of
being sure." He also states: "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is
pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other
Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean."[131]
I think Price is correct, and I think we can identify which images came together.
Paul’s Jesus
While I disagree with some of Ellegard’s conclusions, his linguistic methods applied to the texts of early Christianity provide
the clues to the earliest concept of Jesus.
He begins his study with the writings of Paul, which are, as most NT scholars admit, the earliest unquestionably Christian (as
we understand Christianity) writings.
[132] As Ellegård points out, based on the accepted Christian chronology, Paul must have
been about the same age as Jesus of Nazareth, so his silence on the life and works of this alleged messiah is quite remarkable.
Ellegård tells us that his examination of the texts suggests strongly the following:
Paul's message to his audiences in the Jewish Diaspora was that his and his colleagues' visions proved, first, that Jesus had risen from
the dead, second, that he was the Messiah, and third, that the Last Judgement was imminent, at which Jesus, as the Messiah, would
save the faithful from death and destruction.
Messianic ideas were rife among the Jews throughout the centuries around the beginning of our era, so Paul's and the others'
preaching found willing listeners. But who was Jesus? Paul says very little about him. Evidently his audiences could identify him
immediately, since they asked no questions. Moreover, as the main message was that Jesus would soon return and save those who
believed that he was the Messiah, the human, earthly Jesus was of little consequence to them.
Paul's only experience of Jesus was clearly through his ecstatic visions. To judge from his writings (1 Cor 15) he assumed that his fellow
apostles had had experiences of the same kind. He certainly does not feel inferior to them on that score. But if none of the apostles
had ever seen Jesus, the natural conclusion is that Jesus cannot have been contemporary with any of them. This, together with the fact
that Jesus was taken for granted in all the Pauline congregations throughout the Diaspora, leads to the further conclusion that he was a
well-established figure among them, and presumably one whose activity had been living in their memories for a long time.
Paul had seen Jesus after he had been raised to the heavens, which proved that he had in this sense risen from the dead. But neither
Paul nor anybody else said anything about when Jesus' death and resurrection had taken place. It was not an essential question. The
chief concern of Paul and his congregations was the imminence of the Day of Judgement. Hence the one thing necessary was to
arrange one's life in such a way as to be saved on that momentous day, which was assumed certainly to arrive within the lifetime of
those who heard Paul.
But as years and decades passed without the expected catastrophe, it is understandable that many people turned their attention to
other aspects of the teaching of Paul and his fellow apostles. We may assume that Jesus was known as a revered teacher. But what
exactly had he taught? How had he taught it? To whom? When? What kind of a person was he?
If those who began to ask these questions towards the end of the first century turned to the writings of Paul and his contemporaries,
they found little in the way of answers. They had to construct a life of Jesus largely on their own. This is how the Gospels arose …[133]
Ellegård then lists six texts that he believes were produced by Christian communities in the 1st century in addition to the
letters of Paul: the Pastor of Hermas, the Didache, the First Letter of Clement, the Letter of Barnabas, the Letter to the
Hebrews, and the Revelation of John. The major portion of the latter, he believes, was written right around the time of the
destruction of Jerusalem, probably just prior to it, and intended to give encouragement to the rebels to hold out for the
coming of their messiah. Ellegård points out that, of course, these texts have been subjected to later editing and additions,
but in general, on linguistic grounds, they can be situated earlier than the gospels. He gives close and detailed arguments for
why he dates these texts as early as he does.
None of the early texts that Ellegård has identified ever use the term “Christian”; followers are always referred to as the Elect,
the Saints, the Church of God – all terms found in the Qumran texts. Also, they have almost nothing to say about an earthly
Jesus or his teaching or theology. Instead they focus on a death and resurrection, though none of them give an indication of
this having occurred in a temporal context. None of them ever claim to have seen or heard an earthly Jesus, nor do they claim
to know of anybody who did. It seems that their sources were “revelations” that they had from interpreting passages from the
Hebrew Scriptures and other literature, such as Enoch and various prophetic works. In contrast to Paul, who addressed mainly
gentiles, the other six documents listed by Ellegård apparently address a Jewish Diaspora audience. Their arguments are
consistently based on the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Among other clues, the points above lead Ellegard to argue that the early Christian communities began as Essene-type
gatherings – ecclesia – all around the Empire. That, of course, connects them in some way to the Qumran community near the
Dead Sea. We can get a good idea of how those people were thinking and acting based on their texts: it was all (more or less)
about evicting and/or destroying the hated Romans.
Essenes, Gnostics, and Qumran
Before continuing, it will be useful to lay out what has been said about the Essenes by writers of antiquity. Here is Philo’s first
account:
Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most
populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand
in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they
are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a
state of holiness and purity. These men, in the first place, live in villages, avoiding all cities on account of the habitual lawlessness of
those who inhabit them, well knowing that such a moral disease is contracted from associations with wicked men, just as a real disease
might be from an impure atmosphere, and that this would stamp an incurable evil on their souls.
Of these men, some cultivating the earth, and others devoting themselves to those arts which are the result of peace, benefit both
themselves and all those who come in contact with them, not storing up treasures of silver and of gold, nor acquiring vast sections of
the earth out of a desire for ample revenues, but providing all things which are requisite for the natural purposes of life; for they alone
of almost all men having been originally poor and destitute, and that too rather from their own habits and ways of life than from any
real deficiency of good fortune, are nevertheless accounted very rich, judging contentment and frugality to be great abundance, as in
truth they are.
Among those men you will find no makers of arrows, or javelins, or swords, or helmets, or breastplates, or shields; no makers of arms
or of military engines; no one, in short, attending to any employment whatever connected with war, or even to any of those
occupations even in peace which are easily perverted to wicked purposes; for they are utterly ignorant of all traffic, and of all
commercial dealings, and of all navigation, but they repudiate and keep aloof from everything which can possibly afford any
inducement to covetousness; and there is not a single slave among them, but they are all free, aiding one another with a reciprocal
interchange of good offices; and they condemn masters, not only as unjust, inasmuch as they corrupt the very principle of equality, but
likewise as impious, because they destroy the ordinances of nature, which generated them all equally, and brought them up like a
mother, as if they were all legitimate brethren, not in name only, but in reality and truth. But in their view this natural relationship of
all men to one another has been thrown into disorder by designing covetousness, continually wishing to surpass others in good
fortune, and which has therefore engendered alienation instead of affection, and hatred instead of friendship; and leaving the logical
part of philosophy, as in no respect necessary for the acquisition of virtue, to the word-catchers, and the natural part, as being too
sublime for human nature to master, to those who love to converse about high objects (except indeed so far as such a study takes in
the contemplation of the existence of God and of the creation of the universe), they devote all their attention to the moral part of
philosophy, using as instructors the laws of their country which it would have been impossible for the human mind to devise without
divine inspiration.
Now these laws they are taught at other times, indeed, but most especially on the seventh day, for the seventh day is accounted
sacred, on which they abstain from all other employments, and frequent the sacred places which are called synagogues, and there they
sit according to their age in classes, the younger sitting under the elder, and listening with eager attention in becoming order. Then
one, indeed, takes up the holy volume and reads it, and another of the men of the greatest experience comes forward and explains
what is not very intelligible, for a great many precepts are delivered in enigmatical modes of expression, and allegorically, as the old
fashion was; and thus the people are taught piety, and holiness, and justice, and economy, and the science of regulating the state, and
the knowledge of such things as are naturally good, or bad, or indifferent, and to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong,
using a threefold variety of definitions, and rules, and criteria, namely, the love of God, and the love of virtue, and the love of mankind.
Accordingly, the sacred volumes present an infinite number of instances of the disposition devoted to the love of God, and of a
continued and uninterrupted purity throughout the whole of life, of a careful avoidance of oaths and of falsehood, and of a strict
adherence to the principle of looking on the Deity as the cause of everything which is good and of nothing which is evil. They also
furnish us with many proofs of a love of virtue, such as abstinence from all covetousness of money, from ambition, from indulgence in
pleasures, temperance, endurance, and also moderation, simplicity, good temper, the absence of pride, obedience to the laws,
steadiness, and everything of that kind; and, lastly, they bring forward as proofs of the love of mankind, goodwill, equality beyond all
power of description, and fellowship, about which it is not unreasonable to say a few words.
In the first place, then, there is no one who has a house so absolutely his own private property, that it does not in some sense also
belong to every one: for besides that they all dwell together in companies, the house is open to all those of the same notions, who
come to them from other quarters; then there is one magazine among them all; their expenses are all in common; their garments
belong to them all in common; their food is common, since they all eat in messes; for there is no other people among which you can
find a common use of the same house, a common adoption of one mode of living, and a common use of the same table more
thoroughly established in fact than among this tribe: and is not this very natural? For whatever they, after having been working during
the day, receive for their wages, that they do not retain as their own, but bring it into the common stock, and give any advantage that
is to be derived from it to all who desire to avail themselves of it; and those who are sick are not neglected because they are unable to
contribute to the common stock, inasmuch as the tribe have in their public stock a means of supplying their necessities and aiding their
weakness, so that from their ample means they support them liberally and abundantly; and they cherish respect for their elders, and
honour them and care for them, just as parents are honoured and cared for by their lawful children: being supported by them in all
abundance both by their personal exertions, and by innumerable contrivances.
Such diligent practisers of virtue does philosophy, unconnected with any superfluous care of examining into Greek names render men,
proposing to them as necessary exercises to train them towards its attainment, all praiseworthy actions by which a freedom, which can
never be enslaved, is firmly established. And a proof of this is that, though at different times a great number of chiefs of every variety
of disposition and character, have occupied their country, some of whom have endeavoured to surpass even ferocious wild beasts in
cruelty, leaving no sort of inhumanity unpractised, and have never ceased to murder their subjects in whole troops, and have even torn
them to pieces while living, like cooks cutting them limb from limb, till they themselves, being overtaken by the vengeance of divine
justice, have at last experienced the same miseries in their turn: others again having converted their barbarous frenzy into another
kind of wickedness, practising an ineffable degree of savageness, talking with the people quietly, but through the hypocrisy of a more
gentle voice, betraying the ferocity of their real disposition, fawning upon their victims like treacherous dogs, and becoming the causes
of irremediable miseries to them, have left in all their cities monuments of their impiety, and hatred of all mankind, in the never to be
forgotten miseries endured by those whom they oppressed: and yet no one, not even of those immoderately cruel tyrants, nor of the
more treacherous and hypocritical oppressors was ever able to bring any real accusation against the multitude of those called Essenes
or Holy. [The Greek is essaioµn eµ hosioµn, as if essaioµn was only a variety of the word hosioµn, "holy."] But everyone being subdued
by the virtue of these men, looked up to them as free by nature, and not subject to the frown of any human being, and have
celebrated their manner of messing together, and their fellowship with one another beyond all description in respect of its mutual
good faith, which is an ample proof of a perfect and very happy life.[134]
Philo’s second account:
But our lawgiver trained an innumerable body of his pupils to partake in those things, who are called Essenes, being, as I imagine,
honoured with this appellation because of their exceeding holiness. And they dwell in many cities of Judaea, and in many villages, and
in great and populous communities. And this sect of them is not an hereditary of family connexion; for family ties are not spoken of
with reference to acts voluntarily performed; but it is adopted because of their admiration for virtue and love of gentleness and
humanity. At all events, there are no children among the Essenes, no, nor any youths or persons only just entering upon manhood;
since the dispositions of all such persons are unstable and liable to change, from the imperfections incident to their age, but they are
all full-grown men, and even already declining towards old age, such as are no longer carried away by the impetuosity of their bodily
passions, and are not under the influence of the appetites, but such as enjoy a genuine freedom, the only true and real liberty. And a
proof of this is to be found in their life of perfect freedom; no one among them ventures at all to acquire any property whatever of his
own, neither house, nor slave, nor farm, nor flocks and herds, nor any thing of any sort which can be looked upon as the fountain or
provision of riches; but they bring them together into the middle as a common stock, and enjoy one common general benefit from it
all.
And they all dwell in the same place, making clubs, and societies, and combinations, and unions with one another, and doing every
thing throughout their whole lives with reference to the general advantage; but the different members of this body have different
employments in which they occupy themselves, and labour without hesitation and without cessation, making no mention of either cold,
or heat, or any changes of weather or temperature as an excuse for desisting from their tasks. But before the sun rises they betake
themselves to their daily work, and they do not quit it till some time after it has set, when they return home rejoicing no less than
those who have been exercising themselves in gymnastic contests; for they imagine that whatever they devote themselves to as a
practice is a sort of gymnastic exercise of more advantage to life, and more pleasant both to soul and body, and of more enduring
benefit and equability, than mere athletic labours, inasmuch as such toil does not cease to be practised with delight when the age of
vigour of body is passed; for there are some of them who are devoted to the practice of agriculture, being skilful in such things as
pertain to the sowing and cultivation of lands; others again are shepherds, or cowherds, and experienced in the management of every
kind of animal; some are cunning in what relates to swarms of bees; others again are artisans and handicraftsmen, in order to guard
against suffering from the want of anything of which there is at times an actual need; and these men omit and delay nothing, which is
requisite for the innocent supply of the necessaries of life. Accordingly, each of these men, who differ so widely in their respective
employments, when they have received their wages give them up to one person who is appointed as the universal steward and
general manager; and he, when he has received the money, immediately goes and purchases what is necessary and furnishes them
with food in abundance, and all other things of which the life of mankind stands in need.
And those who live together and eat at the same table are day after day contented with the same things, being lovers of frugality and
moderation, and averse to all sumptuousness and extravagance as a disease of both mind and body. And not only are their tables in
common but also their dress; for in the winter there are thick cloaks found, and in the summer light cheap mantles, so that whoever
wants one is at liberty without restraint to go and take whichever kind he chooses; since what belongs to one belongs to all, and on
the other hand whatever belongs to the whole body belongs to each individual. And again, if any one of them is sick he is cured from
the common resources, being attended to by the general care and anxiety of the whole body. Accordingly the old men, even if they
happen to be childless, as if they were not only the fathers of many children but were even also particularly happy in an affectionate
offspring, are accustomed to end their lives in a most happy and prosperous and carefully attended old age, being looked upon by such
a number of people as worthy of so much honour and provident regard that they think themselves bound to care for them even more
from inclination than from any tie of natural affection.
Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things calculated to
dissolve such associations, they repudiate marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an eminent degree; for no one of
the Essenes ever marries a wife, because woman is a selfish creature and one addicted to jealousy in an immoderate degree, and
terribly calculated to agitate and overturn the natural inclinations of a man, and to mislead him by her continual tricks; for as she is
always studying deceitful speeches and all other kinds of hypocrisy, like an actress on the stage, when she is alluring the eyes and ears
of her husband, she proceeds to cajole his predominant mind after the servants have been deceived. And again, if there are children
she becomes full of pride and all kinds of license in her speech, and all the obscure sayings which she previously meditated in irony in a
disguised manner she now begins to utter with audacious confidence; and becoming utterly shameless she proceeds to acts of
violence, and does numbers of actions of which every one is hostile to such associations; for the man who is bound under the influence
of the charms of a woman, or of children, by the necessary ties of nature, being overwhelmed by the impulses of affection, is no longer
the same person towards others, but is entirely changed, having, without being aware of it, become a slave instead of a free man. This
now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men,
venerate their sect, and increase their dignity and majesty in a still higher degree by their approbation and by the honours which they
confer on them.[135]
From Pliny the Elder’s Natural History:
To the west [of the Dead Sea] the Essenes have put the necessary distance between themselves and the insalubrious shore. They are a
people unique of its kind and admirable beyond all others in the whole world; without women and renouncing love entirely, without
money and having for company only palm trees. Owing to the throng of newcomers, this people is daily reborn in equal number;
indeed, those whom, wearied by the fluctuations of fortune, life leads to adopt their customs, stream in in great numbers. Thus,
unbelievable though this may seem, for thousands of centuries a people has existed which is eternal yet into which no one is born: so
fruitful for them is the repentance which others feel for their past lives![136]
Josephus’ account from Wars:
For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the
Sadducces; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, and called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have
a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and
the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children, while they are pliable, and
fit for learning; and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny
the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women,
and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man.
These men are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there any one to be found among them
who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the
whole order,—insomuch, that among them all there is no appearance of poverty or excess of riches, but every one’s possessions are
intermingled with every other’s possessions: and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren. They think that oil is a
defilement; and if any one of them be anointed without his own approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to be sweaty is a
good thing, as they do also to be clothed in white garments. They also have stewards appointed to take care of their common affairs,
who every one of them have no separate business for any, but what is for the use of them all.
They have no certain city but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies
open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go into such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long
acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their
weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of
strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children
use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of garments, or of shoes, till they be first entirely torn to pieces
or worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell anything to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that
wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they
are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.
And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put
up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. After this every one of
them are sent away by their curators, to exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great diligence
till the fifth hour. After which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in
white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an
apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the
dining room; as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook
also brings a single place of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; but a priest says grace before meat; and it is
unlawful for any one to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and
when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside their
[white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening; then they return home to supper, after the same
manner; and if there be any strangers there, they set down with them. Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their
house, but they give every one leave to speak in their turn; which silence thus kept in their house, appears to foreigners like some
tremendous mystery; the cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise, and the same settled measure of meat and drink that
is allotted to them, and that such as is abundantly sufficient for them.
And truly, as for other things, they do nothing but according to the injunctions of their curators; only these two things are done among
them at every one’s own free will, which are, to assist those that want it, and to show mercy; for they are permitted of their own
accord to afford succor to such as deserve it, when they stand in need of it, and to bestow food on those that are in distress; but they
cannot give any thing to their kindred without the curators. They dispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion.
They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided
by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury; for they say, that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God, is already
condemned. They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the advantage
of their soul and body; and they inquire after such roots and medicinal stones as may cure their distempers.
But now, if any one hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of
living which they use, for a year, while he continues excluded; and they give him a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and
the white garment. And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to
their way of living, and is made partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this
demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years, and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their
society. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths; that, in the first place, he will
exercise piety towards God; and then, that he will observe justice towards men; and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his
own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; that he will ever
show fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no one obtains the government without God’s assistance; and
that if he be in authority, he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, nor endeavor to outshine his subjects, either in his
garments, or any other finery; that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he
will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal anything from those of his own
sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though any one should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life.
Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain
from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the means of the angels [or messengers]. These are the
oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves.
But for those that are caught in any heinous sins, they cast them out of their society; and he who is thus separated from them, does
often die after a miserable manner; for as is bound by the oath he hath taken, and by the customs he hath been engaged in, he is not
at liberty to partake of that food that he meets with elsewhere, but is forced to east grass, and to famish his body with hunger till he
perish; for which reason they receive many of them again when they are at their last gasp, out of compassion to them, as thinking the
miseries they have endured till they come to the very brink of death, to be a sufficient punishment for the sins they had been guilty of.
But in the judgments they exercise they are most accurate and just; nor do they pass sentence by the votes of a court that is fewer
than a hundred. And as to what is once determined by that number, it is unalterable. What they most of all honor, after God himself,
is the name of their legislator [Moses]; whom, if any one blaspheme, he is punished capitally. They also think it a good thing to obey
their elders, and the major part. Accordingly, if ten of them be sitting together no one of them will speak while the other nine are
against it. They also avoid spitting in the midst of them, or on the right side. Moreover, they are stricter than any other of the Jews in
resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they may not be obliged to
kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon. Nay, on the other days they dig a
small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering
themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, after which
they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for
this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a
defilement to them.
Now after the time of their preparatory trial is over, they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors,
that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves, as if they had intermixed themselves with the
company of a foreigner. They are long-lived also; insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity
of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also. They condemn the miseries of life, and are above
pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than living always; and indeed
our war with the Romans gave abundant evidence what great souls they had in their trials, wherein, although they were tortured and
distorted, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through all kinds of instruments of torment, that they might be forced either to
blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what was forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do either of them, no, nor once to
flatter their tormentors, or to shed a tear; but they smiled in their very pains, and laughed those to scorn who inflicted the torments
upon them, and resigned up their souls with great alacrity, as expecting to receive them again.
For their doctrine is this:—That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of it not permanent; but that the souls are
immortal, and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtle air, and are united to their bodies as in prisons, into which
they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released
from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And this is like the opinion of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations
beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain, or snow, or with intense heat, but that this place is such
as is refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark
and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments. And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when
they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demigods; and to the souls of the wicked, the
region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their fables relate that certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion, and Tityus, are
punished; which is built on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those exhortations to virtue, and exhortations
from wickedness collected; whereby good men are bettered in the conduct of their life, by the hope they have of reward after their
death, and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although
they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death. These are the divine doctrines of the
Essenes about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste of their philosophy.
There also those among them who undertake to foretell things to come, by reading the holy books, and using several sorts of
purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets; and it is but seldom that they miss in their
predictions.
Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from
them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of the human life, which is the prospect
of succession; nay rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. However, they try their
spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they
then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they
do not marry out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity. Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments
on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essenes.[137]
Josephus’ second account, from Antiquities:
But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination.
[138] ¼ These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans ¼[139]
The doctrine of the Essenes is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the
rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they
do not offer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common
court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they entirely
addict themselves to husbandry. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue,
and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other man, neither Greeks nor
barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs
which will not suffer anything to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth
than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to
keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by
themselves, they minister one to another. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the
fruits of the ground; such as are good men and priests, who are to get their corn and their food ready for them. They none of them
differ from others of the Essenes in their way of living, but do the most resemble those Dacae who are called Polistae [dwellers in
cities].[140]
Gabriele Boccaccini implies that a convincing etymology for the name Essene has not been found, but that the term applies to
a larger group within Palestine that also included the Qumran community.[141]
According to Josephus, the Essenes had settled "not in one city" but "in large numbers in every town". Philo speaks of "more
than four thousand" Essaioi living in "Palestine and Syria", more precisely, "in many cities of Judaea and in many villages and
grouped in great societies of many members".[142]
The Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis (writing in the late 4th century AD) seems to make a distinction between two main
groups within the Essenes: the Ossaeans and the Nazareans. Epiphanius describes each group as follows:
The Nazarean – they were Jews by nationality – originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan … They acknowledged Moses
and believed that he had received laws – not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish
observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They
claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the
Nazarean and the others …[143]
After this Nazarean sect in turn comes another closely connected with them, called the Ossaeans. These are Jews like the former …
[they] originally came from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis and Arielis, the lands beyond the basin of what sacred scripture called the Salt
Sea … Though it is different from the other six of these seven sects, it causes schism only by forbidding the books of Moses like the
Nazarean.[144]
The relationship between the community of Qumran and the Essenes has been disputed.
Norman Golb[145] argues that ¼ the amount of documents is too extensive and includes many different writing styles and
calligraphies; the ruins seem to have been a fortress, used as a military base for a very long period of time – including the 1st century
– so they could not have been inhabited by the Essenes; and the large graveyard excavated in 1870, just 50 metres east of the Qumran
ruins, was made of over 1200 tombs that included many women and children – Pliny clearly wrote that the Essenes who lived near the
Dead Sea "had not one woman, had renounced all pleasure ... and no one was born in their race". ¼ Other scholars refute these
arguments – particularly since Josephus describes some Essenes as allowing marriage. Another issue is the relationship between the
Essaioi and Philo's Therapeutae and Therapeutrides. He regarded the Therapeutae as a contemplative branch of the Essaioi who, he
said, pursued an active life. [Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 1.1.][146]
Shürer accepts the identification as probable.[147] So, the Essenes were probably a fairly diverse group, ranging from
contemplative to militant in ideology, and extending throughout the empire.
The Teacher of Righteousness
Ellegård argues that what was known of the person named as “Jesus” in the Easter visions was related to traditions about the
Teacher of Righteousness who figures in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest of which are thought to have been written ca. 100
BC. This individual was known as a revered founder and leader of the cult, but not the Messiah or a supernatural being. The
Teacher of Righteousness was someone to whom God had made known all the mysteries of the prophets, and who had been
severely persecuted. In view of this, Wells discusses Talmudic references that point to a Jesus who was killed by the Jews in
Lud (Lydda) by stoning,[148] and not by the Romans in Jerusalem by crucifixion. In the Gemara, the body of commentaries on
the Jewish codification of Law called the Mishnah, Jesus was said to have been persecuted by King Alexander Jannaeus:[149]
The Gemara sums up Jesus’ activities by saying (Sanh. 43a) that he ‘practised magic and deceived and led astray Israel’. This man who
learned magic in Egypt and scratched charms on his flesh has little resemblance to the gospel Jesus. ... The passage goes on to explain
the incident, ‘When king Jannaeus put the Rabbis to death, Rabbi Joshua b. Perahiah fled to Alexandria but later … came back … (Sotah,
47a and Sanh. 107b). The persecution of the Pharisees under Jannaeus is well attested. Löw [1858] thought that the Jesus of the
Talmud fled into Egypt during this persecution, learned magic there, and later founded the Essene sect, which he says, is named after
him. ¼
In sum, if the early Christians were not followers of the gospel Jesus but Jews who believed that the Messiah, named Jesus, had come
and would return, and who were otherwise orthodox, keeping the law and attending the temple, then the silence of the rabbinical
literature about Jesus and about Christians up to the end of the first century, when the decisive break occurred, is quite intelligible;
whereas if there was a historical Jesus who had the career ascribed to him in the gospels, it is not.[150]
This idea is particularly interesting in view of Birger Pearson’s work Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Pearson
adduces new support of Moritz Friedlander’s idea that gnosticism is a pre-Christian phenomenon originating in anti-Law
Jewish circles in Alexandria. That is, gnosticism arose among Jews who were exposed to Middle Platonism, but also influenced
by the events of their times, i.e. the political facts on the ground, and the evident failure of the promises of their god:
This hermeneutical principle can be described as one of revolt. In the Gnostic reinterpretation the God of Israel, the God of history and
creation, is demonized; the Creator and his creation are considered to be the product of a tragic fall within the divine realm; and
humanity is seen to be a part of the transcendent God imprisoned by hostile powers in an alien environment. Inasmuch as the Gnostic
synthesis reflects the use and reinterpretation of Jewish scripture and tradition, it is apparent that the Gnostic phenomenon itself
originates in a Jewish environment as an expression of alienation from (“orthodox”) Judaism. As a result a new religion, which can no
longer be called “Jewish,” is born.[151]
However the scholarly dispute ends (assuming that it could or would!), there are a number of striking parallels between some
of the Nag Hammadi texts and the texts of Qumran. This suggests strongly that similar speculations were underway both in
Alexandria and in Palestine, and one wonders where they began. Is the Talmud correct that the origins were in Palestine in the
time of Alexander Jannaeus? Or later, when Pompey destroyed the nationalist dreams of the Jews by taking Judea under
Roman control?[152] The Hellenistically inspired exegetical activities of the two groups advanced in different ways: for the
Gnostics, Yahweh/Jehovah became a demon of sorts, and for the Qumran community, one only needed to apply more and
better Pesher-izing to get the right combination and understand what was going on and what was going to happen. This is
interesting in view of the fact that the Gnosticizers tended to reject the Old Testament (even if they based their myths on it),
while later Christian orthodoxy – like the sectarians at Qumran – retained the Old Testament in rejection of the Gnostics and
later Marcionites.
In any event, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the memory of their founder was treasured a long time after his death. Ellegård
proposes that visions of this teacher – long dead – convinced members of the Qumran community and other groups of
Essenes throughout the Empire that he was preparing to return to Earth along with the Hosts of Heaven, for the last
judgment. Paul, it seems, may have taken this further and become convinced that the Teacher was a supernatural being who,
like the character in the Wisdom Literature, had sought an abode on Earth, was rejected, and returned to Heaven. Further on,
I’m going to propose a variation on this idea.
The descriptions of the Essenes written by Philo of Alexandria around 20 AD, and later by Josephus, suggest that they were a
much more open and innovative group than what the Dead Sea Scrolls say about the xenophobic Qumran community.
Perhaps that was because the Qumran group were closer to the scene of the political action and had become radicalized into
Zealotry.
What Did Paul Know?
If the earliest Christian documents were addressed to Diaspora communities, and if many of these communities were Essenes,
then we can probably assume that these groups held the same individual – the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness – in high
esteem. What Paul was intent on communicating to these communities was the Jesus now revealed to him as a supernatural
figure, a heavenly judge, and his salvific work was exemplified as “Christ on a cross”. This is a bit of a problem. The idea of
crucifixion doesn’t mesh with the emphasis on blood. Discussing the Book of Revelation, Wells notes:
… the Jews believed in the efficacy of the shedding of blood as a means of placating God. According to Leviticus, ‘the blood on the altar
makes atonement for sins because it is being given for life that has been forfeited through sin. The blood is valid for atonement only
when it is poured out on the altar in death’.[153] And the idea that the blood of the sacrificed animal conveys new life is found in the
worship of Attis … In this cult, a bull and a ram were sacrificed on a grille under which the initiate stood, and he was reborn as the
blood rained down upon him.[154] When the Apocalypse pictures Jesus as a slaughtered lamb who redeemed the elect with his blood,
a sacrificial death on the altar is indicated. … many manuscripts say that the elect are ‘washed’ from their sins by his blood. This implies
the shedding of streams of blood as in sacrifice on the altar. This image of the slaughtered lamb whose blood was poured out would
not be a very apposite way of referring figuratively to death by crucifixion, which is relatively bloodless, but could be better applied to
someone who had been beheaded or torn to pieces with knives.
[155]
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness
to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ¼ When I
came to you, brothers, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know
nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”[156] With these words, Paul makes clear the decisive importance
he attributes to the image of Christ on a cross. Recalling the Jesus who was stoned at Lydda, and afterwards hung on a cross,
we find that this is the prescribed method derived from Deut. 21:23, which further states that the accursed body ought not to
be left hanging overnight so as not to desecrate the land. That is probably where Paul got the idea that the ignominy of the
death of Jesus freed Christians from the law. Wells writes:
The argument he gives to show that [the Law] is unnecessary is that a crucified Jesus contradicts the law of Deut. 21.23 that a man
whose dead body is hanged upon a tree is accursed of God. Paul quotes this passage and comments: ‘Christ brought us freedom from
the curse of the law by becoming for our sake an accursed thing’ (Gal. iii.13). The argument is: the law says that the man crucified is
accursed. Jesus was crucified but could not be accursed. Therefore a case has occurred for which the law is not valid. But as it must be
either valid absolutely or invalid absolutely, it is by this one case rendered wholly invalid.[157]
That the blood of a perfectly righteous man can atone for others, and that excess suffering especially can “pay” for the sins
others have committed, and is of service to others, goes back at least to the Wisdom of Sirach and the books of Maccabees.
But, as Wells notes, while it was possible for orthodox Jews to think of their Messiah as suffering to atone for the sins of the
world, they did not hold the idea that the Messiah might die as a bloody, atoning sacrifice. Paul got that part of his Christology
elsewhere. Commenting on how the idea of the suffering servant became associated with the Messiah, Wells writes:
All that was necessary was that this idea [i.e. that excess suffering for the sins of others is of service to others] should be applied to the
Messiah. This application was natural enough, since the Messiah was believed to be a powerful and virtuous being, and the idea that
suffering gives power and is associated with virtue is almost universal. The Indian Brahmins, for instance, practiced self-inflicted
suffering in the hope of attaining supernatural power, and many virtuous men or saints are reported to have endured great suffering.
The idea may have arisen from the supposed connection between sin and punishment. Suffering is held to atone for wickedness, and
excess of suffering is therefore like the opening of a credit account.[158]
It is fairly easy to suggest that Paul adopted the idea of the dying and resurrecting gods of the pagans, but I don’t think it is
quite that simple. Wells proposes, based on Frazer, that when the dying and resurrecting agriculture gods were transferred to
city life, the objects of their revivification became human beings themselves and the resurrection of the god was thought to
ensure that of his devotees. That is, those who associated with a particular god, and supported that deity by devotion, would
also achieve a new life after the death of the body. All around the empire there were public and private cults focused around
such promises. It is suggested that in those times of gross and outrageous vice and inequity on the part of the social elites, a
popular reaction developed in the form of rapid development and promulgation of religious groups – ecclesia – in which an
ethically pure life was a condition of membership. Mysteries were multiplied, and initiates were submitted to ceremonies,
rites, mystical reenactments of the death and resurrection of the god, confession of sins, sacrifices, and so on. The most
consistent elements shared across these organizations were baptism, sacrifice, and a common meal that represented not just
communion with other initiates, but with the god as well.
Indeed the early Christian communities of the Diaspora had much in common with such ecclesia, but as noted, the “church” in
Jerusalem may have been something quite different. What Paul created and taught appears to have been very much at odds
with that group. As Wells writes:
Paul wrote of a Jesus of whom no traditions were current save that he was the Messiah descended from David,[159] was crucified, and
that his resurrection promised his worshippers immortality. Nothing was known of his doctrines or of when he lived. Thus there is
nothing in the earliest Christian documents which would have appeared unacceptable to a citizen of the Middle East at the time, when
the idea of the dying Saviour was very widespread. … Murray has observed that ‘the parts of Christian doctrine which a Levantine
pagan of the first century would deny are chiefly the historical statements. Like Paul before his conversion, he would be ready enough
to discuss the doctrine of a Hebrew Messiah or a Hellenistic “Saviour”, but would refuse to believe that this supernatural being had
just arrived on earth in the person of a certain Jew or Nazarene’.[160] Since it is the historical statements that are lacking in the earliest
Christian traditions, it really looks as if Christianity began without them, as one of the many dying-god sects of the time which grew in
popularity because of the extent to which it was able to assimilate other myths and rituals.[161]
Paul never mentions John the Baptist; never says anything about a betrayal by Judas or Peter’s denial of Jesus. This latter item
is surprising since Paul was in direct conflict with Peter and the Jerusalem ecclesia, and would surely have brought up any dirt
about Peter had he known about it. There are numerous occasions when citing a saying of Jesus would have settled an issue,
but Paul never does that. More than once, Paul contradicts what the later gospels say, but more often, the gospels appear to
be putting Paul’s words into Jesus’ mouth. When Paul says he is giving “a commandment of the Lord”, we note that “the
Lord” never said any such thing, and Paul is explicit that he got his instructions via revelation, not from any teachings
transmitted by men.
Paul also doesn’t write anything about 12 apostles and the one mention of them in the epistles is commonly regarded as an
interpolation; but even if it isn’t, it contradicts the gospels.[162] Paul only knows Cephas, James and John, the “so-called
pillars”, with whom he is in direct conflict. Paul taught that all who believed in Jesus would be saved and that the Jewish law
was null and void. James appears to have been the one insisting that the law was the only way to salvation. Paul speaks of
Judaizing plots and conspiracies against his converts, and he mentions another gospel of circumcision, rivals who proclaim
“another Jesus.” Obviously, Paul’s Jesus was not the Jesus of the Jerusalem ecclesia.
Paul also never mentions or alludes to the idea that any of the apostles had ever been companions of an earthly Jesus. When
he refers to James as “the Lord’s Brother”, he most likely means a member of an order of devotees since he also refers to “the
brethren of the Lord”[163] repeatedly throughout all his letters. Nowhere does he suggest or hint that Cephas, James and
John were taught anything by Jesus; they are simply leaders of a sect in Jerusalem with which Paul is trying to establish some
sort of cooperation for reasons that aren’t entirely clear considering the dynamics he reveals.
The Two Jesuses
Both Wells and Ellegard (and more recently, Doherty and Carrier) point out, with example after example, that the earliest
Christian documents show no knowledge of the “Jesus of Nazareth” figure, as we saw above with the letters of Paul. With this
in mind, Wells argues:
¼ we arrange extant early Christian documents into a chronological series, we find that … Jesus figures simply as a supernatural
personage whom God had sent in human form into the world to redeem it and who was crucified there in unspecified circumstances.
These early writers are so vague in what they say about his life that they may well have believed only that he had been crucified in
obscure circumstances long ago. I show that such a view is likely to have been suggested to them by the Jewish wisdom literature they
knew well and by traditions they must have known concerning actual crucifixions of living men in Palestine one and two centuries
before their time. And I argue that they were in fact probably wrong in believing this much of him.[164]
In his book Can We Trust the New Testament, Wells somewhat modifies his initial ideas as presented in The Jesus Legend
(1996) and The Jesus Myth (1999):
In my first books on Jesus, I argued that the gospel Jesus is an entirely mythical expansion of the Jesus of the early epistles. ¼ I no
longer maintain this position. The weakness of my earlier position was pressed upon me by J.D.G. Dunn, who objected that we really
cannot plausibly assume that such a complex of traditions as we have in the gospels and their sources could have developed within such
a short time from the early epistles without a historical basis (Dunn, [The Evidence for Jesus,] 1985, p. 29). My present standpoint is:
this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q, or at any rate parts of it, may well be as early as ca. A.D. 50); and if I am right, against Doherty
and Price – it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that the Q material, whether or not it suffices as evidence of Jesus's
historicity, refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.[165]
Despite the fact that the “Q Hypothesis” has come under serious (and reasonable) attack in recent years, it still seems that
Wells is onto something when he insists that a supernatural messiah figure (Paul’s Jesus) was overlaid on a real person in
Palestine in the 1st centuries BC and/or AD.
In the Gospels, the two Jesus figures — the human preacher of Q and the supernatural personage of the early epistles who sojourned
briefly on Earth as a man and then, rejected, returned to heaven — have been fused into one. The Galilean preacher of Q has been
given a salvific death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles), but in a historical
context consonant with the date of the Galilean preaching.[166]
As we’ll see, the human figure probably wasn’t “the Galilean preacher of Q”, but he was from Galilee.
James, Peter, John and Jude
Now, it is time to turn to the early documents that followed Paul but precede the gospels and Acts. This will be just a brief
survey in order to try to get a feeling for what was going on. But keep in mind most of all that we are looking for Jesus!
The Epistle of James is something of an oddity. The author is obviously writing later than Paul, and he writes with the apparent
intention of directly contradicing Paul’s theology, but he cites the Old Testament as his witness and never refers to the gospels
or to Jesus as an authority (or as his brother!). The author teaches, “swear not, neither by the heaven nor by the earth, nor by
any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay: that ye fall not under the judgment”.[167] Later, this is put into
Jesus’ mouth in Matthew 5:34, 37, though James never mentions Jesus as the author of the saying. When he mentions “the
Lord”, there is no indication that he means Jesus. He writes that healing of the sick can be effected by “the elders”, an official
body, as opposed to Paul’s doctrine that the power to heal could belong to any believer who had that “gift of the spirit”.
Either this is evidence of the development of an ecclesiastical organization, or it derives from the already existing organization
of the Qumran community, or one like it, such as an Essene ecclesia in the Diaspora. The epistle of James is mainly concerned
with one thing: the imminent coming of a supernatural being. It shows no awareness of the destruction of Jerusalem, so it
possibly dates somewhere between 50–70 AD.
The so-called First Epistle of Peter likewise gives no information whatsoever about any life or times of a man called Jesus,
whose companion he was supposed to have been. He mentions the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus and the legend of the
descent to the underworld, and talks about the ancient prophets who foretold “the sufferings of Christ and the glories that
should follow them” and that these prophecies had nothing to do with the times in which they were given, but rather applied
to the times of the author and his audience. As Wells points out, that is simply not true. All of the ancient prophets apparently
did expect their prophecies to apply to their own time and it is only by torturing the text that the authors of the NT managed
to derive a “Life of Jesus” out of the OT. “Peter” does mention Jesus as an example of endurance of suffering, but instead of
relating it to recent life events that he ought to have witnessed himself, and for which he could have given powerful testimony
if he had, he utilizes the descriptions from Isaiah 53: the “Suffering Servant”. Peter has apparently augmented Paul’s theology
with a bit of Isaiah. At the end of Peter, the author describes himself as an elder and a “witness of Christ’s suffering”;
however, the Greek term used means “those who give testimony”, not an eyewitness.
Regarding the First Epistle of John, Wells writes:
The traditional assumption that I John was written by the author of the fourth gospel is not very plausible, since the second coming of
Christ is still spoken of in I John ii.28 as a visible occurrence in time, whereas in the fourth gospel all trace of this eschatology has
disappeared and the second advent means the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers. …
The author of this epistle, and also the author of II John, complain of ‘many deceivers’ who deny that Jesus ‘has come in the flesh’. How
could anybody have denied this if his activities, as recorded in the gospels, had formed the basis of the cult? And if these canonical
writers had known about his earthly life, why did they not meet the denial by giving some of the details, e.g. by alluding to his earthly
parentage?[168]
There may have been very good reasons why details were not provided in these letters. If the sectarians of the Qumran
community were “evangelizing war with the Romans”, it seems that they would not have been explicit in any writings.
Ellegård takes issue with the assumption of pseudepigraphy in discussing the letters of James, 1 Peter and Jude. He points out
that biblical scholars assume this because they have a belief in the historicity of the gospel; if the authors of these letters
were who they say they are, they would have known details of the earthly life of Jesus, having been his companions in life;
therefore, they conclude, the letters must be forgeries. Further, since his companions are described as rude fishermen or
laborers, how could they write such fine Greek? Since scholars do not question that one, fundamental assumption – that
Christianity had its origin in Jesus, an early first-century Palestinian Jew from Galilee, an assumption that rests on the gospels
being historical – they are blocked entirely from the consideration that these letters just might be written by exactly who they
say they are written by. Imagine that! Ellegård proposes:
We have in fact every reason to believe that at least the leading members of the Jerusalem Church of God, whose ‘pillars’ Paul had
met, were able to write excellent Greek. … And as, according to my hypothesis, Christianity developed out of Essene Diaspora
communities, we have no reason whatever to expect our first-century AD writers to know very much about the life of their main
founder and prophet, long since dead. … Jewishness permeates the whole letter of James … A clear Essene trait in James occurs in 1:17,
where God is called ‘the Father of lights’, an expression not found, as far as I can see, elsewhere in the Bible, but well in line with the
symbolism of light employed by Essenes, Gnostics, and Christians.[169]
Ellegård shows that the First Epistle of Peter is also written by a Jew to Diaspora Jews and gives no evidence of having actually
known an earthly Jesus, speaking in consistently theological language. Ellegård points out a very interesting factor in this
letter: it appears that it was written to lapsed but now repentant Jews. In 1 Peter 4:3, “Peter” says: “the time past when we
walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries”. Ellegård takes the
expression “wrought the will of the Gentiles” to represent the pressures that Diaspora Jews might be under surrounded by
Gentiles. However, it is also possible, taking the history of Paul vs. Peter into account, that it could be a reference to the time
that Peter was under the sway of Paul and enjoyed table-fellowship with gentiles until James pulled him up short, boxed his
ears, and made him understand that just eating with “those people” was equivalent to being connected to all their other evil
ways. So, when Peter says “we”, maybe he means exactly that?
Moving to Jude, Ellegård points out that the author introduces himself as the brother of James. If the author is referring to
James, the pillar of the Jerusalem ecclesia, the same one that tradition considers to be the brother of an earthly Jesus, then
Jude would also be the brother of Jesus, so why doesn’t he say so? Even if the author was not Jude, or the author of James
was not really James of Jerusalem – the “brother of the lord”, as Paul says – and both letters were written by a pseudonymous
author, that author apparently didn’t know any tradition about Jesus having brothers or he would have capitalized on it. And
if the authors are really James of Jerusalem and Jude, his brother, they also did not know of a Jesus of Nazareth who was their
brother according to later tradition. Or, again, we may be encountering the need for secrecy because of subversive antiRoman activities.
Ellegård believes all three of these letters to belong to the first century, before the destruction of Jerusalem, though there
isn’t much to go on in respect of dating. Jude complains in rather vehement language that infiltrators have crept into their
group and the chief characteristic seems to be sexual immorality, homosexuality being hinted. Perhaps this is metaphoric and
refers to Gnostic or Pauline ideas?
In conclusion, regarding the three letters, Ellegård notes that even though they are commonplace, not very long or even
theologically deep, early communities obviously kept them for some reason and that reason might be the general awareness
that they were written by important members of the early church in Jerusalem.
Letter to the Hebrews
The Letter to the Hebrews is a particularly interesting problem. From very early times, it was attributed to Paul, but Eusebius
notes that some expressed doubts about this.[170] In his second remark on the topic, Eusebius mentions Caius, “a most
learned man” who “silences the rashness and daring of his opponents in composing new books, [and] makes mention of only
thirteen epistles, not reckoning that to the Hebrews with the rest; as there are, even to this day, some of the Romans who do
not consider it to be the work of the apostles.”[171] Eusebius was probably just repeating the opinion of Jerome, who says
that Caius denied the epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s.[172]
The list of “canonical works” contained in the Muratorian fragment[173] does not include Hebrews. (It also excludes James,
Peter and III John.) The anonymous author of the fragment also notes that “Another [epistle] is current with the Alexandrians,
forged in the name of Paul, for the sake of promoting the heresy of Marcion, and many other things …”[174]
The Epistle opens with the solemn announcement of the superiority of the New Testament Revelation by the Son over Old Testament
Revelation by the prophets [1:1–4]. It then proves and explains from the Scriptures the superiority of this New Covenant over the Old
by the comparison of the Son with the angels as mediators of the Old Covenant [1:5–2:18], with Moses and Joshua as the founders of
the Old Covenant [3:1–4:16], and finally, by opposing the high-priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech to the Levitical
priesthood after the order of Aaron [5:1–10:18].[175]
Those to whom the author of Hebrews is writing either have begun to doubt the proclamation of the Messiah or are just now
being introduced to the teaching. They probably believed that the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures was to come
as a militant king and destroy the enemies of his people, and Hebrews is designed to shift their understanding. The argument
achieves this by proposing that the Hebrew Scriptures also foretold that the Messiah would be a priest and this proposed
Messiah, Jesus, came to fulfill this role, as a sacrificial offering to God, to atone for sins. His role of a king is yet to come, and so
those who follow him should be patient and not be surprised that they suffer for now. (They had apparently stopped
assembling together, possibly due to some sort of persecution. Since we are seeing the audience as Jewish, we can suppose
that it is persecution of Jews, a topic we will come to soon.)
We may sum up our author’s Christology negatively by saying that he has nothing to do with the older Hebrew messianic hopes of a
coming Son of David, who would be a divinely empowered human leader to bring in the kingdom of God on earth; and that while he
still employs the figure of a militant, apocalyptic king ... who will come again..., this is not of the essence of his thought about Christ.
Positively, our author presents Christ as divine in nature, and solves any possible objection to a divine being who participates in human
experience, especially in the experience of death, by the priestly analogy. He seems quite unconscious of the logical difficulties of his
position proceeding from the assumption that Christ is both divine and human, at least human in experience although hardly in
nature.[176]
To sum up, the author claims to have received the message of salvation from the personal disciples of the Lord. They know
the letters of Paul and make no distinction between Jew and Gentile in terms of potential salvation. Wells points out that the
apparent purpose of the letter – to demonstrate that Jesus, as son of God, is superior to the angels – presupposes that there
were others who thought of Jesus as supernatural, but not divine. The author also manages to make Jesus both a royal and a
priestly messiah by arguing that the Davidic Messiah has been accepted into an even older and more superior priesthood than
that of the Levites, modeled on the priest king Melchizedek, similar to the more recent Judas Maccabeus. It sets before the
Jew the claims of Christianity – to bring the Jew to the full realization of the relation of Judaism to Christianity, to make clear
that Christ has fulfilled those temporary and provisional institutions, and has thus abolished them. This view is commonly
referred to as Supersessionism.[177] Nevertheless, Jesus doesn’t have an earthly biography here, either. The litany of faith
never mentions any person or event having to do with the gospel Jesus; again, nothing but the Old Testament is trotted out
for review.
New Testament and Second Temple Judaism scholar Eric Mason argues that the conceptual background of the priestly
Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews closely parallels presentations of the messianic priest and Melchizedek in the
Qumran scrolls.[178] We have already noted the relationship between the Melchizedekian ideas of the Gnostics and those of
Qumran. This is interesting in view of what sectarian ideas Paul might have opposed and then later been converted to uphold,
though obviously with his own spin that wasn’t quite what the James people were promoting. Though the writing of Hebrews
is elegant and polished, unlike the Pauline epistles, it is clear that Paul’s ideas are being expanded and expounded, and many
scholars now believe that the author was one of Paul's pupils or associates.
Adolf von Harnack,[179] A. J. Gordon,[180] Gilbert Bilezikian,[181] and others argue that the author of Hebrews was a
woman, and that this is why there is no firm evidence as to authorship – authorship was deleted either to conceal the fact
that it was a woman, or to protect the letter itself from suppression, or both. Harnack thinks the letter was written in Rome to
the inner circle of Paul’s students and cites Chapter 13 to show the author was a "high standing and apostolic teacher of equal
rank with Timothy". But the author’s name would not have been erased if Luke, Clemens, Barnabas, or Apollos had written it.
Donald Guthrie suggested Priscilla[182] as the author in 1983.[183] A.J. Gordon wrote: "It is evident that the Holy Spirit made
this woman Priscilla a teacher of teachers".[184] Bilezikian remarks on "the conspiracy of anonymity in the ancient church,"
and notes: "The lack of any firm data concerning the identity of the author in the extant writings of the church suggests a
deliberate blackout more than a case of collective loss of memory."
The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being
that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall
argument. Therefore, it has been suggested that the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the
beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[185]
This late dating is due, once again, to the necessity to lace the Pauline timeline with that of Jesus who was “crucified under
Pontius Pilate”, allegedly after the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. In all of these early documents, we have heard not a whisper
of this allegation against Pilate.
Clement of Rome
Before heading out for Rome, Paul penned a letter to the already existing ecclesia there. For those who have created the Jesus
chronology based on the Galilean allegedly crucified under Pilate, this is a problem. Paul addresses his letter to “all God’s
beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints … because your faith is proclaimed in all the world …” This group is obviously
Jewish because Paul then says: “I have often intended to come to you … in order that I may reap some harvest among you as
well as among the rest of the Gentiles.” Following this he reiterates his point by adding: “to the Jew first and also to the
Gentiles.” There are many curious things in this epistle to the Romans, but the most obvious is the fact that there existed an
apparently long-standing Roman church at all! This is the point that Ellegård argues: that the Roman, Corinthian, and possibly
other churches, go back to pre-Jesus of Nazareth times and began as Essene-type communities which were known as
“Churches of God”, and the members were “saints”.
The date of the first letter of Clement, whom Eusebius says was the first bishop of Rome, is much disputed, but most modern
scholars date him to post-destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. c. 95 AD or later. The internal evidence, however, suggests an early
date. Ellegård argues that Clement was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and, like all other texts from this time,
knew nothing of the gospels’ Jesus of Nazareth. The latter is certain; Clement shows knowledge of the letter to the Hebrews,
as well as Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Romans, but no knowledge of the gospels’ Jesus. However, placing the letter
before 70 AD is less certain. Regardless, as Ellegård notes, once our suspicions on the accuracy of Eusebius’ dating have been
aroused, we are better able to see the text as it is, and decipher what it may tell us.[186] But, since most biblical scholars,
beginning with the apostolic fathers right down to the present day, are constantly engaged in apologetics one way or another,
they don’t seem to be able to examine texts with scientific objectivity.
[NOTE: In the footnote above, is it Walter Bauer?]
Among the numerous things that Ellegård notes about this text is the fact that Clement refers to the “Church of God” as both
individual communities as well as a totality of communities spread around the Empire which kept in touch with one another
via letters and “apostles”. Most interestingly, he refers to the organization as being like the hierarchy of an army. He stresses
the importance of obeying the elders, and we know that Qumran-like communities had a council of 12 elders and 3 priests.
Apparently, the reason for the letter is the fact that some elders in Corinth were being ousted by the community and Clement
insists that this ought not to be done. Ellegård writes:
In 1 Clement 5 we read, in a section devoted to the dire effects of ‘jealousy’: ‘Let us take the noble examples of our own generation.’
The examples given are first of all Peter and Paul, whose deaths as martyrs are referred to in surprisingly veiled language. …
The opening phrase of the letter reads: ‘The disasters and calamities that have suddenly and repeatedly struck us, have delayed us in
turning to your affairs.’ The writer obviously refers to very recent happenings … Further, in 1 Clement 6, after mention of Peter and
Paul, there is again a reference to ‘our own generation’, declaring that ‘an immense crowd of the elect ones’ have suffered ‘terrible
and monstrous outrages’. In both cases, the description fits excellently the Neronian persecution of Christians in connection with the
great fire of Rome in 64.[187]
On the dating of 1 Clement, Ellegård finds support in the Pastor of Hermas. While the Muratorian fragment[188] is often used
to date the Pastor, Ellegård is not much impressed with it, and re-dates Pastor closer to the time of 1 Clement.
… in Vision 2-4-3 an angel tells Hermas: ‘make two copies [of what I say to you], one for Clement, and one for Grapte. And Clement
will send it to the other cities – that is his job’ (my italics).
The idea that the Clement mentioned here is Clemens Romanus has been discussed widely but rejected, chiefly, it seems, on the
ground that it is contradicted by the Muratori dating … But … the Clement mentioned in Hermas forms a perfect fit for the author of 1
Clement. Not only do they have the same name, they also seem to play the same role in their community. … Keep in mind that it is
Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, and referring to late second-century witnesses, who says Clement was bishop of Rome. … Paul
mentions both a Hermas and a Clement as contemporaries in his letters.[189]
Clement describes the Corinthian church as “very firm and ancient” (47:6) and the Roman church is described as being equally
old, since the messengers are described as having been members from their youth to old age (63:3). Clement is either using
this language “freely”,[190] or he is being literal. If the latter, all of this would be impossible according to the view that
Christianity was launched by a Palestinian Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. Paul’s activity is referred to in 47:2
as “the beginning of the evangelization”, in which case Paul would have begun to spread his particular spin on the Messiah
message to communities that were already established at the time he was converted. So it seems that these communities had
considered their founder as a revered teacher, but were probably not on a messianic trajectory. It was Paul and other apostles
who began to teach about a messiah, though obviously Paul had very different ideas about how this was supposed to work
from those belonging to the Jerusalem ecclesia. What is striking is that 1 Clement does not mention the “time of Jesus’ death”
or “the time of Jesus” but rather dates things from the time of the beginning of Paul’s apostolic mission.
The Jewishness of Clement’s communities is beyond doubt. In the address, they are described as ‘living as strangers’ in Rome and
Corinth, respectively. … Throughout the letter, Clement refers to Old Testament examples. … Jesus as Christ is the guarantee of
salvation and of life after death. His passion and his death are indeed brought out … they are described in terms of the suffering
servant of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, introduced by the words ‘The Lord Jesus Christ says’, after which follow direct quotations from Isaiah
53:1–12 and Psalm 22:7–9 …
Crucifixion is never mentioned which is surely remarkable, in view of Paul’s intense involvement in the mystique of the cross, a
mystique that he quite likely originated. Clement never goes beyond bare mentions of the ‘blood’ of Christ, without any concrete
elaboration whatever.
Clement tells us nothing about Jesus’ life, his disciples, his baptism by John, his betrayal by Judas, his trial and the manner of his death.
His resurrection is represented as a fact, not as an event. … There is no hint as to when and where it occurred. ¼ Clement sometimes
calls Jesus ‘High Priest’, thus emphasizing the connection with ancient Jewish history, and also … with the Qumran Essenes. Finally,
when Clement in 5.1 turns from ‘ancient examples from the OT’ of the consequences of ‘jealousy’, and talks of ‘our own generation’,
he mentions Peter and Paul – whose deaths he refers to as recent events – but does not mention Jesus …[191]
In trying to come to some conclusion about these matters, I’ve read a good bit of the radical criticism of various letters that
has come out of the German and Dutch schools. Since the letters of Clement and Ignatius are the earliest witnesses to the
letters and activity of Paul, this is important. Complaints about 1 Clement have been based on the hints of Gnosticism which
are thought to be a later development, but which are clearly very early as Philo himself gives evidence. Pearson (and others)
connect the Antiochene, Alexandrian, and Qumran movements together, and Ellegård connects them with Essene ecclesia
around the Empire. Philo, Josephus and Pliny all testify to this latter element. That’s more evidence than we have for a real,
live Jesus! So why is it so generally discounted?
One critic, Volkmar, complains that 1 Clement doesn’t get to the point right away. I find it rather astounding that modern
standards of rhetoric are being imposed on an ancient writer. The criticism that a much later development, the inculcation of
apostolic authority, is the main purpose of the letter, dissolves when it is understood that we are dealing with Essene-like
sectarians with an established hierarchy long in existence. The additional criticism is that there does not seem to be any
conflict between Jews and Gentiles; that is easily explained by pointing out that Paul’s style of gospel was undoubtedly more
at home in the Diaspora and it was only because he sought, for reasons of his own that I will discuss further on, to try to bring
the Jerusalem sectarians into accord with his vision of unifying Jews and Gentiles under the same god that he came into
conflicts with them.
It seems that apostles from the Jerusalem sect were going out to evangelize along the line of uber-Judaism – promoting their
coming revolution – while Paul was doing the opposite. It just depended on which apostle was more convincing, as Paul’s
conflicts evident in his letters reveal. If we can take as fact some of the personal data dropped in the letter to the Romans, it
may be that connections also had a lot to do with the way the wind blew in any given ecclesia. So, that’s the first thing: I think
Ellegård has made a reasonable case and, what’s more, it will be seen to fit with further matters yet to be put on the table.
Second, Clement’s reference to the recent deaths of Peter and Paul are couched in rather vague terms. First Clement 5:2 says
rather specifically: “By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and
contended even unto death.” If we recall that Paul referred to Cephas, James and John as the “pillars” in Jerusalem, I don’t
think it is stepping too far out on a limb to say that this sentence may very well refer to the deaths of those individuals. (We
may also find those deaths actually recorded in a non-biblical source.) So, having made a statement about the pillars, the
author then moves on to apostles, and here he names Peter first of all. The way this is presented is as if Peter is not one of the
pillars, which might mean that Cephas and Peter were not one and the same person.
[192] “There was Peter who by reason of
unrighteous jealousy endured not one not two but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed
place of glory.” The question here might be: was it Peter who was unrighteously jealous or was he a target of unrighteous
jealousy? Who imposed on him the labors he “endured”? It sounds almost like Peter came to an ignominious end.
The next case is Paul, who “by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which
was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the
West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place,
having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.” I don’t think this passage at all conveys that Paul was martyred,
but rather that after many trials, his life turned around completely, he hobnobbed with the elite and died an old and honored
man, having become notable even to rulers. He may have done this in Spain, which was the the Empire’s “farthest bounds of
the West”, or Rome or both.
So who was Clement? Twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem, 95 AD, a man named Titius Flavius Clemens was
consul. Domitian executed him the year after. Syncellus, writing in the ninth century, was the first to call him a Christian, and
the earlier accounts of his death suggest Syncellus may have been correct. First there is Suetonius, writing in the early second
century:
[Domitian] unexpectedly killed his own cousin Flavius Clemens, [a man] of most contemptible laziness, on a very feeble suspicion,
shortly after the end of his consulship.[193]
Dio, writing a century later, adds more detail:
In the same year Domitian executed among many others, also Flavius Clemens, although he was a cousin and his wife was Flavia
Domitilla, a relative of Domitian. Both were accused of godlessness, a crime on account of which also many others, who were inclined
to Jewish practices, were condemned. Some lost their lives, others at least their fortunes. Domitilla was only exiled to Pandateria.[194]
Another century after Dio, Eusebius, most likely quoting a Roman history by Bruttius that hasn’t survived, writes:
Flavia Domitilla, a daughter of the sister of Flavius Clemens, a Roman consul at that time, was exiled to the island of Pontia because of
her Christian faith. Many others were exiled too in that year.[195]
Eusebius here confuses things. Domitilla was Clemens’ wife and Domitian’s niece. And she was exiled to Pandateria, which was
a common place of exile, not Pontia. Oddly, Eusebius (and/or Bruttius) calls Domitilla a Christian, but not Clemens, whereas
Dio accuses them of the same crime.
The only other early account is from Philostratus, who probably wrote around the time of Dio in the early third century. He
makes Domitilla the sister of Domitian, and adds the detail that Domitian also ordered her execution, and her slave made an
unsuccessful attempt to save her:
And now the gods were about to cast down Domitian from his presidency of mankind. For it happened that he had just slain [Flavius]
Clemens, a man of consular rank, to whom he had lately given his own sister [Flavia Domitilla] in marriage; and he issued a command
about the third or fourth day after the murder, that she also should follow her husband and join him. Thereupon Stephanus, a freed
man of the lady, he who was signified by the form of the late portent, whether because the latest victim's fate rankled in his mind, or
the fate of all others, made an attempt upon the tyrant's life worthy of comparison with the feats of the champions of Athenian
liberty. ¼[196]
My how details do multiply as time goes by! In any event, note that Dio says the couple was accused of godlessness and were
inclined to Jewish practices. At the time, this charge of atheism would have referred to the refusal to worship the emperor
(Domitian in this case) as god. Early Pagan and Christian sources both refer to Christians as “Jewish” (Suetonius, Lucian, Acts,
Acts of Peter, Ps. Clem.), and Christians are repeatedly accused of atheism (attested in the writings of Justin, Tatian, Minucius
Felix, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Celsus, Prophyry, Lucian). Roman Christians in particular were called “superstitious”.[197] On
the other hand, there’s no known charge of atheism against Jews in any sources.[198] Based on this evidence, it seems likely
that Domitilla was a Christian, and that “Dio changed the Christianity of Domitilla to an ‘inclination of Jewish customs’.[199]
As for Clemens, Lampe doesn’t think he was a Christian, preferring to think that he was executed on suspicion of Domitian
that Clemens was planning to have one of his sons (whom Domitian had chosen as successors) take the throne ahead of
schedule. But the two are not mutually exclusive, and it seems just as likely that Dio was being truthful by saying they both
faced the same accusation.
Was this Clemens the same Clemens Romanum (Clement of Rome), the “first bishop” of Rome and author of 1 Clement? The
same Clement mentioned by Hermas as being in charge of Christian correspondence for the Roman church? The same one
mentioned by Paul as his fellow-worker? It’s possible. But he would need to have been born prior to 30 AD in order to be an
associate of Paul by the late 40s. (His cousins Titus and Domitian were born in 39 and 51 AD, respectively, and his uncle
Vespasian was born in 9 AD, so it may fit.)
The Pastor, Didache and Barnabas
The Pastor by Hermas is described by Ellegård as a sort of allegorical religious novel. It is composed of five visions, twelve
mandates, and ten parables granted to Hermas, a former slave. In parable 5, the author mentions a Son of God as a virtuous
man filled with a Holy "pre-existent spirit" and adopted as the Son. Despite this adoptionistic Christology, the text was widely
accepted among the later orthodox Christians, which suggests that it had been around so long that no one really paid any
attention to that. Also notable is the fact that the author refers to the “Son of God” but never uses the words “Christ”, “Jesus”,
or “Christian”. The multitude of angelic figures in the text, presented as incarnations of abstract powers, is typical of gnostic
influence such as has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A number of scholars justify a mid-second century date because the Pastor appears to have used the gospels. However, it is
equally likely – if not more likely – that the authors of the gospels used Hermas. The text never mentions Paul or any other
apostle, though the communities are referred to as the “elect of God” and have the usual collection of “apostles, bishops,
teachers and deacons” who welcome guests into their houses. There is no hard hierarchy, so the early period is in evidence.
The ecclesia was probably Jewish because the “Parousia” is not the coming of Christ, but of God, the traditional view of the
Jews. Overall, the text is very comfortable in a Jewish milieu of the first century.
The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is a brief, anonymous pastoral manual, dated by most scholars to the mid
to late first century, but Ellegård dates it to before the destruction of Jerusalem. The first line is: "Teaching of the Lord to the
Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles". More than any other early Christian book, it shows how Jewish-Christians saw
themselves and adapted their Judaism for gentiles. The text has three main sections dealing with ethics, rituals and Church
organization, while the contents can be divided into four parts, which most scholars agree were combined from separate
sources by a later redactor: the Two Ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death (chapters 1–6); a ritual dealing with
baptism, fasting, and Communion (chapters 7–10); the ministry and how to deal with traveling prophets (chapters 11–15). The
final section (chapter 16) is a brief apocalypse: the community is presented as "awaiting the kingdom from the Father”.
The closest parallels in the use of the Two Ways doctrine is found among the Essene Jews at the Dead Sea Scrolls community.
The Qumran community included a Two Ways teaching in its founding Charter, The Community Rule. The Didache makes no
mention of Jesus' resurrection, other than a prayer of thanks for "immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through
Thy Son Jesus" in the eucharist; the Didache makes specific reference to the resurrection of the just prior to the Lord's coming.
Significant similarities between the Didache and the gospel of Matthew have been found as both writings share words,
phrases, and motifs. The old view that the Didache used Matthew is being abandoned; rather, Matthew used an early version
of the Didache, which was “Christianized” in later times, to some extent.[200] It seems more evident that the gospels were
composed using such early texts, not the other way around. As noted by the Didache’s subtitle, the text was intended to
instruct Gentiles who wished to join the ecclesia. What is evident from both the Didache and the Pastor is that the Diasporan
communities were not as exclusivist and xenophobic as the Jerusalem ecclesia run by the three “pillars” as described by Paul
and as is evident from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There appears to have been a universalist tendency among these groups which
probably inclined them more to Paul’s unifying theology.
The Epistle of Barnabas represents a significant sea change in the universalist/unifying approach. Like 1 Clement, it is a
theological treatise and not properly a letter. It is cited near the end of the second century but was obviously in circulation
well before. In 16:3–4, the Epistle reads:
Furthermore he says again, 'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their
fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.
This passage indicates that Barnabas was composed after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. J. C. Treat writes:
Since Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple, Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first
undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before
Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. Attempts to use 4:4–5 and 16:1–5 to specify the time of origin more exactly have
not won wide agreement. It is important to remember that traditions of varying ages have been incorporated into this work.[201]
Considering the general tone of the text, one wonders about this alleged “hope” for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
It seems that the text is laying blame on the rebels for the destruction of the temple and then implying that the rebels
themselves, having become slaves/servants of the Romans, would be required to rebuild it possibly as something else, i.e.
Hadrian’s Roman temple. Such an interpretation appears to be quite in line with the polemic of Barnabas directed against
Judaism in general.
The writer's name is Barnabas, but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to the illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul. External and
internal evidence here come into direct collision. The ancient writers who refer to this Epistle unanimously attribute it to Barnabas the
Levite, of Cyprus, who held such an honourable place in the infant Church. Clement of Alexandria does so again and again (Strom., ii. 6,
ii. 7, etc.). Origen describes it as "a Catholic Epistle" (Cont. Cels., i. 63), and seems to rank it among the Sacred Scriptures (Comm. in
Rom., i. 24). Other statements have been quoted from the fathers, to show that they held this to be an authentic production of the
apostolic Barnabas; and certainly no other name is ever hinted at in Christian antiquity as that of the writer. But notwithstanding this,
the internal evidence is now generally regarded as conclusive against this opinion.[202]
Let me just note here that the above statement about the Epistle of Barnabas ought to be recalled whenever any weight is
given to the claims and attributions of the early church fathers. That applies as well to this epistle, which claims to quote
“scripture.”
Returning to the text itself, the author argues that the Christians are the only true covenant people, and that the Jewish
people had never actually been in a covenant with God. His polemics against Judaizing Christians, separating the Gentile
Christians from observant Jews, reflect the increase of anti-Jewish sentiment that spread through the Empire following the
Jewish War and the concomitant necessity for spiritual messianists to separate themselves from rebel messianists. This is clear
from the very first line: “I bid you greeting, sons and daughters, in the name of the Lord that loved us, in peace”, followed
shortly by: “there are three ordinances of the Lord; the hope of life, which is the beginning and end of our faith; and
righteousness, which is the beginning and end of judgment; love shown in gladness and exultation, the testimony of works of
righteousness” (1:6). He specifically says “we are in danger, so let’s tighten up our ship” in the following: “Seeing then that the
days are evil, and that the Active One himself has the authority, we ought to give heed to ourselves and to seek out the
ordinances of the Lord” (2:1), i.e. the ordinances just mentioned.
Barnabas declares that the covenant promises belong only to the Christians (4:6–8). Circumcision, and the entire Jewish
sacrificial and ceremonial system, are due to misunderstanding. Jewish scriptures, rightly understood, contain no such
injunctions (chapters 9–10). In places, the author comes across as Paul on steroids reinterpreting the Torah:
¼ the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine; the prohibition on eating
rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner; the prohibition on eating weasel is actually a prohibition of
oral sex, based on the belief that weasels copulate via the mouth.[203]
The bottom line is that author aims at proving that Jewish understanding of the Torah is completely incorrect and can now be
considered superseded, since in the author's view the Jewish scriptures foreshadowed a peaceful Jesus and Christianity when
rightly interpreted. In a sense, he is justifying the takeover of the Jewish scriptures by the Christians.
The author quotes from the Old Testament and apocrypha. Scholars also claim that he quotes from the New Testament
gospels twice (4:14, 5:9). The two passages:
4:14: Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they
were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen.
5:9: And when He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the
righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God.[204]
I would like to point out that the general agreement of Barnabas with the salvation history of the gospels, and the inclusion of
the above references, does not mean that the gospels were already written at this point in time. It is equally plausible that
the gospels utilized Barnabas in their composition and when he refers to “scripture”, it may very well be the above-mentioned
writings of Essene groups very similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Notice that the author also quotes material that is similar to 4
Esdras (12:1) and 1 Enoch (4:3; 16:5). The closing Two Ways section (chapters 18–21), are from the Didache, which the author
presents as "another gnosis and teaching" (18.1).
Daniel, Enoch, and the Ascension of Isaiah
Barnabas wrote: “I know that the Lord journeyed with me on the way of righteousness, … considering this therefore, that, if it
shall be my care to communicate to you some portion of that which I received, it shall turn to my reward for having ministered
to such spirits”, after which he begins his communication of what he “received” with the three ordinances mentioned above.
That is to say, what “Barnabas” is doing is completely in line with earlier exegetical practices. He may also have been following
the “inspirational” activities promoted amongst Pauline churches. Wells gives some thought to this problem and I will quote
him at length here because his explication is concise:
In the Jewish literature of the period we find a highly developed angelology. The writer of the book of Daniel (c. 165 BC) was the first by
whom angels were individualized and endowed with names and titles, and later apocalyptic literature assumed a heavenly hierarchy of
stupendous proportions. In Enoch seven classes of angels are distinguished – the cherubim, seraphim, ofanim, the angels of power, the
principalities, the Elect One (the Messiah) and the elementary powers of the earth. Josephus tells us, concerning the Essene oath, that
the sectary undertook to preserve, without alteration, ‘the names of the angels’, and the Qumran scrolls refer to them at every turn,
calling them also ‘holy ones’, ‘spirits’, ‘gods’ (elim), ‘honourable ones’, ‘sons of Heaven’. The members of the Covenant lived in the
company of the celestial spirits all the time, and believed that angels, both good and evil, would join in the final eschatological war
between themselves and all the heathen nations.
These angels of Jewish imagination are often represented as occupying different levels in the universe. In the Slavonic Enoch the
universe consists of a number of tiers; the abyss, then the prison of the dead, then the earth, then the firmament peopled by Satan and
cruel invisible princes, then seven heavens. In the centre of each heaven is a ‘throne’ around which throng principalities, dominions
and powers. Above them all is God, surrounded by the celestial beings called his powers, his throne, his spirit, his wisdom, his glory, his
name. …
The terms ‘throne’, ‘principalities’, ‘powers’ and ‘dominions’ are used to designate celestial beings in the Testaments of the Patriarchs
(e.g. Test. Levi III) and also, as Christian commentators admit (e.g. NBC[205] p. 1046) in the following passages from the NT epistles: …
Coloss. i.16, … Ephes. i.21, … Rom. viii.38, … I Pet. iii.22.
It is clear that Paul not only believes in these angels, but also in the multi-layered universe … For he tells of a Christian who was
‘caught up into the third heaven’ and also ‘into paradise and heard words so secret that human lips may not repeat them’ (II Cor. xii,
2–5, NEB). The continuation shows that this man was Paul himself.
It seems that certain Jews (not orthodox ones, but so-called Gnostics) not only owned the existence of angels but also worshipped
them as divine beings. According to the NBC (p. 1044) the basis of Gnosticism is the doctrine that matter is evil, so that in creation,
God cannot come into direct contact with it. ‘It is necessary, therefore, to posit a number of emanations of deity, a number of spiritual
beings germinating, as it were, the first from God, the second from the first and so on until they sink lower and lower and make contact
with matter possible. Only thus could God have created the universe and at the same time maintained His holiness inviolate. It follows,
then, that these graded beings are in control of the material universe in which man has to live. He must enlist their support.’ The sum
total of emanations of the godhead is denoted by the Greek word pleroma, and these Jewish Gnostics worshipped the pleroma.
This is the intellectual background against which the Pauline letters were written, and Colossians (ii, 8, 18) seems specifically to combat
this doctrine that angelic agencies are necessary to salvation. Paul shows what their true place is, and asserts that one single privileged
being, called Jesus the Messiah, absorbs the pleroma in himself, that he is the first after God, or with God, among all the celestial
beings. …
Couchoud remarks that in the passage from Colossians we have the most primitive idea of Jesus – that of a being who absorbed the
pleroma in himself. He also notes that clearly, in Paul’s view, the death of Jesus redeemed creatures in the heavens as well as on earth.
…
From Phil. ii, 5–11 we learn that Jesus is a divine figure who came down into the material world to suffer an ignominious death. Then
he reascended and received a mystic name as powerful as the name of God. Couchoud regards this story of the descent and reascension of the divine being as the key to Paul’s conception of Jesus and he remarks that we are fortunate enough to posses an
ancient Jewish apocalypse which gives the story in greater detail, and so fills out the picture which is merely sketched by Paul.[206] He
is referring to the so-called Ascension of Isaiah.
[207]
Wells then describes the Ascension of Isaiah in some detail before explaining what is happening with the Epistle of Barnabas:
According to Dibelius ¼ the motive of the author of this whole story is to explain to those who believed in a celestial redeemer, called
Christ, how it could happen that this figure was able to reach the earth without opposition; why it was that the angels of the various
heavens let their worst enemy redeem man without resisting his passage.
What relevance has all this to Paul’s idea of Jesus? Couchoud, and Dibelius some years before him¼,
[208] answer that Paul seems to
have had a revelation very similar to that here ascribed to Isaiah. In I Cor. ii, 9, he tells that God has revealed marvelous things to him
– things, he adds, which pertain to our salvation, to God’s gift to us (verse 12). … The purpose of this descent and re-ascent is given in
the passage from Colossians. By the blood of his cross he laid the basis for reconciling all things in heaven and earth to the Father; by
his death and resurrection he broke the power of those angels who opposed God, and also put an end to man’s dependence on angels,
good or bad. Man can now commune with God via Jesus, without other intermediaries. Thus Paul declares that we need no longer be
slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe (Gal. iv, 3–5); that no spirits need now separate us from the love of God (Rom viii, 38–9);
and that the ‘rulers of this world’ are declining to their end (I Cor. ii, 6). The reference is to Satan and his angels, and in this passage
from Corinthians Paul is thus saying that it is these wicked creatures who crucified ‘the Lord of Glory’, not knowing who he was.
Couchoud compares this with the Ascension of Isaiah, ix. 14: ‘And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and
they will crucify him on a tree, and will slay him, not knowing who he is.’ They do not know his identity because at every stage in his
journey down he was transformed into the likeness of the creatures at that level. Just as this work goes on to tell how he rose from the
dead and punished them by confronting them in his true form, so too Paul describes (Coloss. ii, 15) how they were tricked and
vanquished: ‘Having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in
it’. The NEB says he ‘made a spectacle of the cosmic powers and authorities, and led them as captives in his triumphal procession’. …
Paul distinguishes as stages in the winding-up of the universe: first Christ’s resurrection, then the resurrection of the dead at his second
coming, and finally his destruction of the angels; he will ‘abolish every kind of dominion, authority and power’. Then he will abdicate or
‘deliver up the kingdom to God the Father’, and the celestial harmony will be complete (I Cor. xv, 51 f.)
The later development of Christianity can be understood as an attempt to explain the repeated failure of the final judgment to
materialize. … as Dibelius puts it, ‘the centre of gravity of Christian expectations shifted from the future into the … past’ … And as
attention became more concentrated on Jesus’ sojourn on earth, biographical details would begin to be invented, and traditions
initiated which eventually became fixed in the gospels. Apocalypses and apocalyptic visions would be ousted by biographies. … Further
biographic details could be furnished by interpreting some of the prophecies which referred to a supernatural redeemer in such a way
as to make them apply to a human messiah. …
It was, then, disappointment in Jesus’ failure to come in his glory to judge and end the world that led believers to concentrate their
attention on what had already been achieved by his first coming, and in this way to invent traditions about the details of his stay on
earth. … Mt. tells how, at the death of Jesus, an earthquake occurred, rocks and graves were split open, and the saints occupying them
were resurrected. … catastrophes such as Mt. depicts were what the Jews expected would occur at the second coming. Mt.’s story was,
then, invented in order to show that Christians need not be disappointed at the failure of the second coming to occur, since the
phenomena associated with it had, at any rate in part, been manifested at the first coming. Disappointment is being rectified in that
the frustrated hopes of a future denouement are replaced by faith and belief in one that had already occurred in a definite historical
situation.[209]
As to the process by which the biography of Jesus of Nazareth was gradually developed, Paul himself described how he did it,
and then he said in 1 Corinthians 14:26 ff:
To sum up, my friends: when you meet for worship, each of you contributes a hymn, some instruction, a revelation, an ecstatic
utterance, or the interpretation of such an utterance.
That is exactly what the author of Barnabas says he did: “I know that the Lord journeyed with me on the way of righteousness.
… considering this therefore, that, if it shall be my care to communicate to you some portion of that which I received, it shall
turn to my reward…” As Wells points out:
Paul, obsessed with fears about the powers of the angels in the firmament, found consolation in his visions, which informed him that
the redeemer had come down to earth in order to trick and put to shame these beings; and that he had tricked them by suffering an
ignominious death at their hands.[210]
But the Messiah did not come and destroy the evils of the world. Instead, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple,
and the march of elite dominance, slavery, oppression of the poor, and myriad manifestations of social inequity and insecurity
continued. Nothing got better and a lot of people died in the destruction caused by the drive to absolute power. The same
kinds of fears and obsessions that led to the longing for a Messiah would have grown up around the failure of the predicted
Messianic arrival and would then have led to those who believed that they were involved in a mystic union with Christ to
produce solutions to this problem in their prophetic and ecstatic utterances. Faith in the redeemer is what mattered and what
would bring personal salvation since, obviously, the world isn’t being saved or transformed.
Already the groundwork had been laid for prophecy to become the purview of an ecclesiastical elite. The Didache says in
Chapter 13:
Every genuine prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of support. So also, every true teacher is, like a workman, entitled to
his support. Every first fruit, therefore, of the products of vintage and harvest, of cattle and of sheep, should be given as first fruits to
the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it all to the poor. If you bake bread, take the first loaf and
give it according to the commandment. If you open a new jar of wine or of oil, take the first fruit and give it to the prophets. If you
acquire money or cloth or any other possession, set aside a portion first, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the
commandment.
It was in the context of competing claims of self-described “genuine prophets” that controversies raged during the
development of Christianity, and from what we have seen thus far, it wasn’t truth and righteousness that prevailed in the end:
it was power of persuasion, rhetoric, drama, and playing on the fears of humans adrift in a violent and terrifying reality; and in
the end, orthodoxy expressed itself as raw power; “by their fruits, you shall know them”.
So, where are we in our account? Now, after over a hundred years of a Jesus about whom no one knew any details, suddenly
we encounter the one detail that locks him into a definite historical timeline: Pontius Pilate.
Tacitus on Pilate
The earliest mention of Pilate in relation to Christians is actually from Cornelius Tacitus. The context of the passage is the
Great Fire of Rome that burned a huge portion of the city in 64 AD during the reign of Nero. The key part of the passage reads
as follows:
Therefore, to dispel the rumor [that he personally ordered the fire], Nero supplied defendants and inflicted the choicest punishments
on those, resented for their outrages, whom the public called Chrestiani. (The source of the name was Christus, on whom, during the
command of Tiberius, reprisal had been inflicted by the procurator Pontius Pilatus; and, though the baleful superstition had been stifled
for the moment, there was now another outbreak, not only across Judaea, the origin of the malignancy, but also across the City, where
everything frightful or shameful, or whatever provenance, converges and is celebrated.)
The first to be seized were those who confessed, then, on their information, a mighty number was convicted, not so much on the
charge of the conflagration as for their hatred of the human race.[211]
In 1902 Georg Andresen first noticed the odd appearance of the first 'i' in “Christianos” in the earliest extant, 11th-century,
copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text. The
alteration was later conclusively shown with ultra-violet examination. According to Robert Van Voorst, it is unlikely that
Tacitus himself referred to Christians as Chrestianos, i.e. "good, kind, useful, pleasant ones", given that he also referred to
them as "hated for their shameful acts", and many other sources indicate that early followers of Jesus used the term
Chrestians by the second century.[212]
For example, while “of Christ” is spelled Χριστοῦ (Christou) in Greek, an early Marcionite church in the Syrian village of Lebaba
(Deir Ali) near Damascus contains an inscription with the words Ἰησοῦ Χρηστοῦ (Iesou Chrestou), dated to 318 AD, making it
older than any existing Catholic inscriptions.[213] The Codex Sinaiticus (dated to 330–360 AD) is the earliest manuscript
evidence for Acts 11:26 and 26:28, the only instances of the word “Christian” in the New Testament (in addition to 1 Peter
4:16). In all three instances of this word, the Sinaiticus scribe spells the word “Chrestian”. There are numerous other examples
from manuscripts, inscriptions, and writings of the early Fathers of the Church.[214]
Pilate's rank while he was governor of Judaea appeared in a Latin inscription on the Pilate Stone, which called him a prefect,
while this Tacitean passage calls him a procurator. Josephus refers to Pilate with the generic Greek term ἡγεμών, hēgemōn, or
governor. Tacitus records that Claudius was the ruler who gave procurators governing power after Herod Agrippa's death in
AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule.[215] Much has been made of the fact that Tacitus mislabeled Pilate, but, as
some scholars note, it was more common at the time of his writing, half a century after Pilate. It was an easy mistake to
make.
Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic and I don’t see any reason to doubt it myself, considering all the
material that has been covered thus far regarding Essene-type ecclesia throughout the Empire and taking into account the
possible historical background to 1 Clement.
I will also add that the testimony of Tacitus does not in any way specify the dates that Pilate was in Judea, only that it was
under Tiberius. But this will be discussed in some detail below.