Inventing the Messiah: Was Jesus Christ a Product of Good Marketing or Real History?
 |
| Anime depiction of Jesus Christ's resurrection Photo courtesy of Saint Young Men |
Modding a mythical savior?
 |
| Tel Dan Stele, discovered in 1993, with the words "House of David" highlighted. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
The concept of messiah was not new in Jewish circles, no less at the time when Jesus supposedly lived, albeit the Jewish people had been exercising some sort of autonomy under Roman hegemony (there was no Roman governor in Judea until 6 AD, 69 years after Pompey successfully sieged Jerusalem). The ancient texts, known as the Old Testament for Christians and as the Tanakh for the Jews, had recorded prophecies of a savior coming from the line of King David, reputedly Israel's greatest ruler and founder of Jerusalem. The perception of this coming messiah, however, has since changed through time. Not only did it mean as the savior coming from the House of David (which entity until the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele, had been largely seen as more fiction than truth), it also meant a powerful military figure overthrowing the yoke of foreign oppressors and the coming of a Messianic Age. In short, the end times which the likes of Ezekiel and Daniel had been written about. But scholars, especially those adhering to the Christ myth theory, believed the Jews were not exactly expecting the savior to be God Himself, even though Isaiah for one was quite certain that the coming Messiah would be called "Wonderful Counselor" (pele yowes), "Mighty God" (el gibbor), "Everlasting Father" (abiad), and "Prince of Peace" (sar-salom).
At any rate, the Jewish nation did achieve some level of independence during the Maccabean period, which coincided with waning Greek power in the Mediterranean. Two decades after the success of the Maccabees in 167 BC, Rome integrated Greece as two provinces. This independence also paved the way for the emergence of the Jewish sects well-established by Jesus' time, the Sadducees (seduqim), the Pharisees (perisayya), and the Essenes (isiyim). Of these three, the first two were the closest to the reins of power in Jerusalem with the Sanhedrin. As to whether they saw the patriarch of the Maccabees as a Messiah or not, it did not seem to be the paramount issue. While the three sects differed in specifics of doctrine (the Essenes possibly having the most disagreements among them), the Jewish people in general still looked forward to a coming savior who would fulfill all the prophecies, and not just some of them. Of course, if the prophecy was for the world to be theirs for the taking, as written in Zechariah, this Messiah should also appeal to everyone somehow, not just the Jewish people.
This was the background wherein the so-called creation, modding if you will, of a Messiah supposedly became feasible. A thousand or so years after David, the savior of his line had not yet come. In the geopolitical context of the Roman Empire, the Jewish people simply had to stick to a niche to spread its agenda to the world. They saw it in their monotheistic faith. Unique in the known world, the question became this: How to market the Hebrew God (yahweh) to a polytheistic audience? As exhibited in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible known as Pentateuch to the Christians), this God was imageless, jealous, vengeful, and terrifying even. A true warrior deity who carved out the Promised Land in the midst of feuding world powers. Anyone who touches His Ark of the Covenant would be struck dead on the spot. And so, the gentle and caring Son of God should have been created as a contrast to this God the Father. No longer does the Lord demand sacrifices, for the ultimate toll has been paid, that of Christ Jesus. Unlike the untouchable Ark, one could touch Jesus and be healed right on the spot. No longer does God forbid the practices of the Gentiles (non-Jewish peoples), for it is by grace through faith had His followers been justified, and no longer by observance of the law. Circumcision was no longer required, for a new covenant, a New Testament, has been forged. And while iconography of the Hebrew God was virtually absent, that of Jesus Christ remains to be present to this day. This was not the Messiah they expected, but the lack of militancy sure appealed to lovers of peace all over.
Is Christianity just another Jewish sect?
 |
| Manga portrayal of Paul the Apostle Photo courtesy of Manga Metamorphosis |
The Gospels were quite definite that Jesus founded His church (kai epi taute te petra oikodemeso mou ten ekklesian). However, assuming Jesus did not really live as a historical figure, who could have "invented" this new faith with His name being used as a trademark of sorts? Scholars who uphold this view point to multiple persons of interests. Some would believe it was the handiwork of the Roman Empire, specifically the Flavian dynasty, to ensure security in that quarter of their realm (note, Caesar's Messiah). Others would believe it was the idea of rogue teachers like Apostle Paul, who primarily wanted to break away from the Jewish religion. Yet others attribute it to adherents of what Josephus called the Fourth Philosophy. That is, the Zealots (kanaim), and a related group known as the Sicarii (siqariyim). But whose radical idea was it, really? And more importantly, what was the motive?
 |
| A coin of Constantine with the image of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
Further examination of the existing arguments appear to fall short of completing the narrative of Jesus. For instance, if Christ was indeed a Roman creation, why base it on the faith of a rebellious nation in the fringes of the empire, when deification of Roman rulers was practiced as early as Julius Caesar's time? To appease the rebellious population by portraying a peaceful Messiah who even told people to pay their taxes right (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)? After all, foreigners rarely figured as the villains in the story of Jesus (perhaps with the exception of the governor, Pontius Pilate). Then again, it must be recalled that trouble during the 1st century AD was not only confined in Judea. There was the Numidian Tacfarinas (Takfarin), the Germanic Arminius (Hermann), and the Celtic Boudicca (Boadicea), among others. The empire was pressed on all sides, and the Flavians never really solved the so-called "eastern situation." It would be Trajan and Hadrian of the succeeding Nerva dynasty who resolved, somehow, the Jewish problem. Indeed, it was during their reign, not during the Flavians, when the empire reached its greatest extent. Meanwhile, if there was anything to learn from Pompey's campaigns east of Rome, it would take more than banking on peace in Jerusalem to eventually win the Roman people. As for Vespasian, founder of the Flavian dynasty, while he was indeed recorded to have consulted an "oracle" in Mount Carmel, the supposed site of Essene activity outside Qumran, he also consulted with oracles elsewhere, such as in Greece. His son, Titus, also famously consulted the "oracle" at Cyprus, the place where Paul was noted to have blinded a "sorcerer." Christians, on the other hand, were not particularly believers of horoscope in general. This distinction would be notable if indeed Christianity was their dynastic legacy.
In relation to this, there was also a time when Romans tried their hand at instating a "primary deity" over the myriad of gods they already have, many of which came from the Greeks (e.g., Jupiter for Zeus, Venus for Aphrodite, Mercury for Hermes, and so on). The Severan dynasty, which ruled from 193 to 235 AD, was notable for taking up the Syrian sun god Elagabalus (Heliogabalus) and laying the foundation for sun worship (Sol Invictus) throughout the empire. Sun worship persisted until 325, during the reign of Constantine. Considering this, a 250-year gap between the Flavian dynasty and Constantine could have been potent enough to dissolve an emerging faith based on the Jewish religion, more so a faith which supposedly had few adherents at the time of the Flavians (as interpreted from Pliny's account that as a lawyer, he had "never been present at the examination of Christians"). After all, the Roman-Jewish Wars found the Jewish people dispersed from the Promised Land. Provided the geopolitical reason of adopting their messianic concept was to keep the peace in Judea, it was a failure. The former Roman province had been assimilated into Syria, while the religious autonomy of the Jews were removed. The seat of the Sanhedrin was moved to Galilee by 140 AD, when the Jews were driven out and banned from Jerusalem. Meanwhile, what of sun worship? Despite its imperial sponsorship, it was not received as well as expected by the Roman populace. If only the imperial trademark determined the success of any religion, then it might not suffice to explain the failure of the undefeated Elagabalus in contrast with the Lord and Savior of Christianity. Also, one of the Flavians (Domitian) supposedly persecuted Christians, albeit upon critical analysis, in a more targeted scale than a widespread one like Nero's. Nonetheless, why go against a religion which should have been formed by your own dynasty? For a convoluted plot to disown their family invention? For an excuse to execute members of the dynasty possibly affiliated with it?
In addition, contemporary non-Christian writers did not appear too sympathetic to a faith supposedly invented by their Roman rulers, if they were indeed contracted as party to conspiracy. Josephus (37-100), for one, labelled Jesus as a "wise man," but had seen Him as attractive only to the Jews and the Greeks. He also got the narrative wrong, somehow, for one who was supposed to be co-conspirator of the Romans to "invent" the messiah. Josephus believed Jesus spent only three days with His disciples after His resurrection, whereas Acts noted it was 40 days. Paul added to this how Jesus appeared to more than 500 disciples at the same time. Meanwhile, the Roman Senator Tacitus (56-120), who admittedly owed his rank to the Flavians, called Christianity a "mischievous" or "pernicious" superstition. Another contemporary, Roman historian Suetonius (69-122), connected Christ with the expulsion of the Jews from Rome upon orders of Claudius (49/50 AD). In relation to this, Acts related how two Christian workers, Aquila and Priscilla, settled in Corinth because of this expulsion. Then again, there was no indication that they were Christians before Paul's arrival in Corinth, or if there were other Christians with them in Rome before Claudius's orders. Suetonius's brief account may imply that there was supposed to be a Christian community in the capital itself, but another clue might be inferred from Romans. While it was generally accepted by scholars that Romans was written by Paul after the reign of Claudius, when Jews were allowed to return to Rome, it nonetheless supported the spread of the Christian faith within Rome itself before Paul's arrival there. Then again, as far as Tacitus and Suetonius were concerned, they did not appear to regard Christianity in good light. They also dated Christians as a community long before Vespasian was emperor. More so, if this was indeed a Roman-sponsored worship, why were many Roman writers of the time silent on this matter?
Meanwhile, as to the arguments supporting that Jesus was actually a version of one of the Fourth Philosophy leaders such as Judas of Galilee, a connection was seen with how Jesus' disciples were mostly illiterate, low-income workers looked down upon by the Jewish sects as "wild." He even had two of them possibly affiliated with the rebel movement, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. Ultimately, Jesus was crucified under a Roman government, symbolic of the fate of those who challenged foreign rule. Then again, Gamaliel's wisdom as mentioned in Acts emphasized the dilemma of such an interpretation. If this was just another failure of a messiah, it would not prosper and their followers would not last. The eventual loss in the Roman-Jewish Wars should have nailed in the coffin for these movements, since one can only rally the people so many times, but Jesus, despite being a failure in the political standpoint for being crucified, outlived the Zealots. Besides, it was the lack of militancy in Jesus' ministry that made it unique. Even the reformist movement set ablaze by contemporaries John the Baptist and Judas son of Saripheus (Serrophis) were considered dangerous enough to result to their execution by the Herodian dynasty. But Jesus was even in contact with some members of the Sanhedrin such as Nicodemus (who was a Pharisee) and Joseph of Arimathea (who financed Jesus' burial), and it was no Herod who executed Him. Meanwhile, another sect outside the reach of the temple, the Essenes, compiled what is now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, wrote on "The War of the Messiah" but made no connection with contemporary events such as that of Judas of Galilee. This probably implied that even though they sought the end times, or perhaps even hasten it, they at least had the belief that it would not be achieved through the efforts of the rebel movement, nor did they seriously expect the savior to come during their generation. The survival of Christianity despite the prevailing circumstances may well be enough to observe the disconnection.
The conspiracy of the Gospels and the Epistles?
 |
| The many images of Jesus Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
And so, the discussion goes full circle with an examination of the New Testament itself. However, some scholars never really viewed them as historical texts than religious. A number of issues have to be considered when probing the historical reliability of the Gospels and the Epistles, mainly the core of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For one, who were their authors and when were they written? Also, who else wrote about these books? Were they cited externally by contemporaries or did they just cite themselves? How could it be assured there was no addition or interpolation in the transfer of knowledge, say with the Gospels (e.g., Mark 16, John 8)? Was there some sort of illusory truth effect, wherein if one was exposed long enough to false information, it would be believed as true?
The prevailing perspective was that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were supposedly written after the Epistles (mostly Pauline, with the rest being attributed to other apostles such as Peter and James were also considered as written later than Paul's), and that they were written at least 40 years after Jesus' life on Earth. That is, after the destruction of Jerusalem's temple in 70 AD as a result of the Roman-Jewish Wars. A major argument on this view was the lack of biographical details on Jesus from Pauline works, whereas the assumption was the core of Jesus' teachings must have existed first as a collection of sayings than as a biography as exhibited by the Gospels. That is, the specifics of Jesus' life on earth was presumed to be an afterthought than a faithful recollection of actual historical events. There was also the problem of chronology within the New Testament itself. It would be important to explore these points one by one considering its complexity.
Paul preceding the original disciples
Of course, a number of figures in history could be cited for not managing to write about themselves or document their world-changing work during their lifetimes. Take of example Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), whose first biography appeared 500 years after his supposed life. Confucius and Socrates, among the more prominent ones, also did not get to write during their supposed lifetimes. While Jesus Himself was not known to have written anything during His earthly life (perhaps with the exception of the writing on the dirt in John 8, but even that part remains disputed to this day), Paul had at least seven letters under his name. It would be 13 all in all if the disputed (pseudepigraphic) ones would be counted. According to Paul himself though, he was a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel, a Roman citizen of the tribe of Benjamin, and he never really met Jesus in the flesh. Instead, he saw Jesus in His resurrected glory in the road to Damascus, where he was supposed to persecute the Christians who escaped to the nearby province of Syria. Whether it was a real vision or a fevered delirium, it was the turning point. Then again, he should have secondhand knowledge, and yet, as he discussed more on Jesus' resurrection than His life on Earth, it appeared in Paul's writings that he was being guided by God Himself. Religiously speaking, this was plausible, but for those who did not buy the manner of handing down Jesus' teachings to Paul, they saw the claim of divine inspiration as a convenient excuse to cover up Paul's imprint as Christianity's "inventor." While Paul's historicity appeared less challenged than Jesus' because of his writings, questions still revolved around his personality. For instance, Paul's Roman citizenship. Some scholars saw it as Paul's "secret weapon" when the Jews turn against him, whether in or out of Jerusalem. There was even the notion that Paul was a relative of the Herods (from Josephus's entry on a certain Saulus), which would appear uncanny for him advocating a messiah who was supposedly purged by the Herodian dynasty. Also, when Paul was brought to the audience of Herod Agrippa, it was not indicated that the latter knew the former beforehand. Another issue would be his theological training. Some would posit that his being a "zealous" Pharisee should have been a barrier to his conversion. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls even allowed further interpretation that the Essenes might be aware of Paul's existence as an "enemy", albeit he was not named directly. Moreover, for those who believe in the Jewish origins of Christianity, they saw Paul more as a "corrupter" or a "hijacker" than a true proponent of Jesus' teachings. However, if Paul supposedly "infiltrated" Christian circles, it would make his "invention" of the faith illogical.
At any rate, whether or not Paul began his ministry before the so-called "Judaizers" who uphold the Jewish customs and the humanity of Jesus (i.e., the denial of Jesus' divinity for He was not the Son of God), it was estimated that Paul's conversion was sometime after 30 AD, possibly after Pilate's tenure since there was no mention of the governor when Paul's Biblical narrative began, and he wrote his epistles between 50 AD until his death (anytime between 64 to 67 AD). It must be noted though that one of the books which documented Paul's life outside his own writings, the Acts of the Apostles, ended with Paul's arrival in Rome. If Acts were written after Paul's death, it could have noted such a sensational report about Christianity's well-known missionary. Internal evidence therefore suggests that Acts might have been authored at the same time Paul wrote his epistles, albeit scholars tend to provide a post-70 AD writing date for Acts, similar to the Gospels.
Herod's Death and the Census of Quirinius
 |
| The Census of Quirinius Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
 |
| Depiction of King Herod the Great Photo courtesy of Comixology |
The English Standard Version, for one, offered an explanation that the census may have happened before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Other interpretations argue that Luke did not refer to Quirinius as governor per se, since the Greek term used (hegemoneuontos) broadly meant "to rule." However, by the time of Herod's death, it was Varus (of Teutoburg Forest fame) who was governing Syria. On the other side of the discussion, Herod's death was posited to have happened later than earlier. While Josephus was quite certain that Herod died on the 37th year since he was named king by Rome (the count beginning at 40 BC), there were other elements of his narrative that seemed unsatisfied by the accepted date, namely the lunar eclipse occurring after the the destruction of Herod's golden eagle by Judas son of Saripheus, the fast before Herod's death, the Passover after Herod's death. There were at least three lunar eclipses observed near the accepted date of Herod's death, the one in March 4 BC being the least noticeable to the naked eye. The others were in September 5 BC and December 1 BC. However, one other element of the narrative was seemingly overlooked: the journey of Herod's son Archelaus to Rome. Josephus noted that Archelaus took off to Rome at haste, presumably after his father's death, to secure Rome's approval of Herod's successors. It was imperative, of course, since Herod himself was sponsored to the throne by the Romans. ORBIS by Stanford estimated that a roundtrip from Caesarea Maritima in Judea to Rome, assuming Archelaus did not take his time enjoying the imperial capital, would be around 42 to 52 days (an average of 47 days). Adding the seven days of mourning for Herod's death, this meant a period of roughly two months between Herod's death and the Passover. If it took Archelaus two months before arriving for the Passover immediately after Herod's death, an occasion usually observed in March or April, then Herod's death should have been in the interval between the eclipse, the fast, and the departure of Archelaus for Rome. While Yom Kippur proved quite far from the December eclipse of 1 BC, there was at least one other fast which could have coincided with this event. This was the Tenth of Tevet (Asarah BeTevet), a "minor fast" mourning the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar. Taking into account Archelaus's journey wherein he got home just in time for the Passover, Herod might have died in the time between December and January (two months before the Passover). Then again, this ran counter against Josephus's count of 37 years for Herod as king, unless he began counting from 37 BC instead of 40 BC.
Provided Herod did meet his demise later than sooner, the issue of the census remained. There were supposedly localized censuses in 8 BC and 2 BC, but neither of them had Quirinius governing Syria at the time. In fact, the position appeared to be vacant as far as Roman records were concerned. There was no designated governor of Syria from 4 BC to 1 BC, which may prove quite convenient for the Jesus' narrative. In that case, Luke would neither be right nor wrong at this juncture. Quirinius would have just concluded his campaigns in nearby Cilicia and Galatia by 3 BC, but unless new evidence reinforces this view, Quirinius in Syria earlier than his official governorship would remain circumstantial. Meanwhile, speaking of Judas son of Saripheus, there was the notion that he might be the Theudas of Gamaliel's speech in Acts. The Theudas in Josephus met his end in 46 AD, making it implausible for him to precede Judas of Galilee who died in 6 AD. But if this certain Theudas was an alternative spelling of Judas, both of which were not uncommon names at the time, then it may resolve the chronology of Acts. For instance, the Jude of New Testament has been generally identified with Thaddeus, and John in particular was definite to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot.
 |
| Stone indicating Pontius Pilate as prefect Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
As a side note, while Matthew and Luke seemed in disagreement on what became the basis of Christmas, John might well add to the confusion of chronology. When Jesus cleared the temple, it was in John where the Jews said "It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" Herod the Great began the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem in 20 BC, the generally accepted date from Josephus, but he never really got to finish the job and it was up to his successors to continue the project (until 63 AD). If the declaration was correct, Jesus should have began His ministry as early as 26 AD, at least three years before Luke's date and just the first year of Pilate's tenure. However, if one considered how Herod's death may have a 3-year difference, was it also possible for the temple's construction also having the same gap? In that case, it might resolve the apparent conflict with Luke's statement. This type of corroboration may also be used to support an earlier date for the authorship of the Gospels, for if the Gospels were written after the temple was destroyed, John would have been aware of its eventual completion and had not made a statement that indicated building was in progress only to make an allusion that Jesus meant His body, not a physical edifice. Also, the discovery of Herodian coins dated around 15 to 20 AD indicating that the temple was not yet complete somehow backed John's account.
Prevalence of the Gospels and the Epistles rejecting later writing dates
Meanwhile, the chronology issue of the New Testament books remain. Unless resolved, opponents of Jesus' historicity would continue to bank on the argument that their later authorship would be sufficient evidence to reject a Messiah on Earth during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius. In an attempt to reconcile the available sources, external corroboration would be necessary. That is, who quoted what in the New Testament? If the Gospels and other non-Pauline epistles were written later, then the assumption would be they have less external references than Paul's epistles. The following may be considered early enough for this exercise:
- Clement of Rome (35-99): Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Revelation
- Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John
- Ignatius of Antioch (d. 140): Matthew, Luke, John, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 John
- Epistle to Diognetus (c. 130): Matthew, John, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter
- Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter
- Papias of Hierapolis (60-150): Matthew, Mark, John, 1 Peter, 1 John
- Didache (c. 150): Matthew, Luke, 1 Peter
- Shepherd of Hermas (c. 160): Matthew, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter
- Justin Martyr (100-165): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Revelation
- Muratorian Fragment (c. 170): Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Jude, Revelation
- Melito of Sardis (120-180): Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews
- Tatian of Adiabene (120-180): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Titus
- Iranaeus of Lyons (130-202): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Revelation
 |
| Mystical depiction of Sophia Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
Comments
Post a Comment