Layman

In his book and on his website Doherty often dismisses seeming references to a historical Jesus because of their relationship to the Old Testament. Because he finds connections between how Jesus is described and Old Testament passages, Doherty determines that they are not describing an earthly figure. In his article on Hebrews, Doherty dismisses the reference that Jesus was "was descended from Judah" because "[t]he verb “anatellein,” to spring (by birth), is also the language of scripture. It is used in several messianic passages, such as Ezekiel 29:21 (“a horn shall spring forth”), and Zechariah 6:12." Similarly, Doherty finds significance in Jesus being "wounded" (Isaiah 53:5) and "pierced" (Psalm 119:120). Most significantly, Doherty claims that Zech. 12:10, is "the source for the 'fact' that Jesus had been crucified." Early Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, at 81. Some, such as John Dominic Crossan, might call such methodology the search for "prophecy historicized." When you find a New Testament passage referring to some event, especially about Jesus, that relates to an Old Testament passage, it should be seen as creativity, not history. Doherty has taken this idea to new levels.

Such a methodology, however, is untenable. Of course the value of the Old Testament to Jews and Christians at that time cannot be understated. For both groups it was the only scripture they had. Because of its centrality to Jewish and Christian thought, it would be foolish to deny it influenced their writings. However, it is going much too far to assert that these writers only used it to invent stories. Far from it. Jews and Christians were almost obsessed in their belief that God had acted and would continue to act in human history. The stories in the Old Testament were not just stories, they were types showing how God might act in the future. They included prophecies of future events. As a result of this, and their belief in a God very active in human affairs, Jews and Christians saw recent historical events in terms of the Old Testament. Moreover, this focus caused them to describe recent events in Old Testament terminology and pursuant to Old Testament themes.

So, to conclude that early Christians were inventing stories because those stories bear similarities to the Old Testament is baseless. To illustrate my point I decided to offer examples of Jewish and Christian use of the Old Testament from a variety of sources. They reveal that Jewish and Christian authors often used Old Testament themes and terms to recast recent historical events or expected future "historical" events. Sometimes the use was tacit, sometimes it was explicit.

1. Josephus

Josephus, not even a particularly religious Jew, tied historical events into Old Testament prophecy. The most notable example is his discussion of the Jewish War and Vespasian's ending it:

Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313.

The "oracle" Josephus refers to is Numbers 24.17-19: "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, A scepter shall rise from Israel, And shall crush through the forehead of Moab, And tear down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be a possession, Seir, its enemies, also will be a possession, While Israel performs valiantly. One from Jacob shall have dominion, And will destroy the remnant from the city."

When Josephus describes the Roman Emperor Vespasian as the Messiah, he is of course referring to a real person and real events. Not fiction. Not myth. Nor a heavenly entity doing things in a heavenly sphere. Rather, Josephus was scripturalizing history. He took the history before him and sought to cast it in Old Testament terms. This was simply how Jews viewed current events. The early Christians did the same.

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls Community

The DSS community offers many examples of using Old Testament language to describe their own beliefs, and expected events. They had a very prominent place for a Messiah of the "house of Aaron" and another for the Messiah "of the house of David." (1QS, IX II; 4Q285; 4Q161; 4Q266). Where did they get this idea? Obviously from the Old Testament. Indeed, the very idea of two messiahs may be traced to Zechariah 6.12-13: "Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord. It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two."

Despite that (or, more accurately, because of it), the Essenes still believed that the priestly Messiah and the royal Messiah would come to earth as human beings to perform his role in God's salvation plan. So too the Christians. Even if it is true that the early Christians saw the events surrounding them as prophecy fulfilled and therefore described them that way.

3. The Talmud

The Talmud, of course, also contains many descriptions of historical events couched in Old Testament terminology or seen as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy. I am still searching for Talmud references, but for now offer this explicit example. The Jewish leader bar Kochba lead a revolt against Rome in 132 CE. The Talmud records that his adherents referred to him as the "son of the star" and the "son of David." These are references to the same messianic prophecy found in Numb. 24:17-19. Palestinian Talmud, Ta`anit 4.5.

4. 1 Maccabees

The First Book of Maccabees is widely regarded as a reasonably accurate work of history. "1 Maccabees' sober account of events has won much respect from historians; if it does not contain the whole truth, it contains enough of it for a fairly clear picture of these years to be reconstructed. The author is careful with dating, and apparently well-informed." John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of Maccabees, at 16-17. Although he is writing history, the author of 1 Maccabees often draws on the Old Testament to explain the history he is recording.

When discussing the battle between Judas and Apollonius, 1 Maccabees records that:

As Dr. Bartlett points out, "Judas and his battles are described in terms which remind us of Saul and David and the battles against the Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel." Bartlett, at 15. The allusion to taking the sword of a fallen enemy can be compared to 1 Sam. 17:50-51: "Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled." When his soldiers are concerned about being outnumbered, Judas alludes to 1 Sam. 14:6-7: "Then Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, "Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the Lord will work for us, for the Lord is not restrained to save by many or by few. "His armor bearer said to him, "Do all that is in your heart; turn yourself, and here I am with you according to your desire."

The same phenomenon occurs later in verses 42-60.

Verse 44 tells us of the Jews praying before battle, as depicted in 2 Chron. 20:5-12. Verse 45 offers a lament reminiscent of that found in Isaiah 1 and Psalm 79. The references to Narities in verse 49 would remind the readers of Samson, a champion of Israel against the Philistines. The battle beginning with the sounding of trumpets in verse 54 is a Jewish tradition in the Old Testament (Num. 10:9; Judge 7:18, 22). Judas "appointed his officers" in verse 55 just as Moses did in Deut. 1:15. He also sent home categories of men as Moses did in Deut. 20:5-8 and Gideon did in Judge 7:1-8. His speech is similar to those described in 1 and 2 Chronicles (e.g. 2 Chron. 20:15-17).

In sum, 1 Maccabees offers numerous examples of how the Old Testament can influence, or at the very least, appear to influence a Jewish (or Christian) author discussing recent historical events.

5. Eusebius and Constantine

Another prime example of using scripture to describe or characterize more recent historical events is found in Eusebius' description of Constantine's victory over Maxentius in 312 at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. While there is no doubt over the historicity of this battle and its outcome, Eusebius steeps his record of it in Old Testament language. Indeed, Eusebius has recast Constantine as Moses, Maxentius as the Pharaoh, the Christians as the enslaved Israelites, and the battle as the defeat of Pharaoh's army at the Red Sea.

When recounting how Maxentius and his army (vastly superior to Constantine's) was defeated on the river Tiber, and how he and many of his soldiers were drowned after their boat bridge broke apart, Eusebius refers to Exodus and the Psalms:

Eusebius, Chapter 9-Maximin's Renewed Attacks on the Church: The End of Persecution.

As these examples show, Jews and Christians alike used the Old Testament to describe historical events. Indeed, though reporting events they believed to be true--and usually were--these writers would often couch their reports in Old Testament terms and themes, showing the relationship of the old to the new, or attempting to show how ancient prophecies had come true in recent events.

Steven Carr

There are examples of Christians and Jews regarding historical events as prophecy fulfillments.

Therefore no Christians or Jews embellished stories to make them look like they conformed to prophecy. Such a methodology is untenable.

Is this the claim? That if , for example, a Gospel writer sees Jesus using 2 animals to enter Jerusalem as a prophecy fulfillment, then it must be an historical fact, as '... to conclude that early Christians were inventing stories because those stories bear similarities to the Old Testament is baseless.'

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm has many stories where OT events were rewritten to become stories about Jesus.

We KNOW that Christians would invent history based on OT stories. Joseph Smith did the same. Surely as relevant as Eusebius in this context.

Layman

No, therefore a methodology that excludes events cast in OT terms is untenable.

If you determine that certain events are unlikely in their own terms and also bear a stricking similarity to OT themes, then I think it might be reasonable to look to the OT as source for the creativity.

And I think it's somewhat silly to equate Joseph Smith with Eusebius. In any event, Joseph Smith's "history" is debunked in its own right, not because much of it is inspired by the Old Testament.

Steven Carr

LAYMAN
'If you determine that certain events are unlikely in their own terms and also bear a stricking similarity to OT themes, then I think it might be reasonable to look to the OT as source for the creativity.'

CARR
Like the Virgin Birth?

And why is it wrong to cite Joseph Smith as an example of a Christian who made up history using OT examples? It refutes the claim that people would not do that. We KNOW people do.

After all, Eusebius is hundreds of years later than the Gospel writers, so why is he relevant?

Layman

If you think it's unlikely in its own terms, then yes, I think that conclusion would be reasonable.

I said it was silly to equate Smith with Eusebius.

And we KNOW people use the OT to describe actual events.

He's about 1600 or so years earlier than Smith.

Steven Carr

LAYMAN
'The Jewish leader bar Kochba lead a revolt against Rome in 132 CE. The Talmud records that his adherents referred to him as the "son of the star" and the "son of David."'

CARR
Was bar Kochba the son of David? Or did the Jews make up the Davidic ancestry of bar Kochba, using OT prophecies as their source of 'facts'?

I want Layman to prove the Davidic ancestry of bar Kochba before he claims that Jews and Christians would not make up facts (such as Davidic ancestry) , based on reading the OT.

It is a little pointless of Layman to say 'Look, Jews did not make up facts. They refer to bar Kochba as historically the son of David'. when Layman does not attempt to show that it WAS a fact that bar Kochba was historically the son of David.

Indeed, a case could be made that the Davidic ancestry of bar Kochbas is an excellent example of precisely the sort of scouring of the OT for 'facts', that Christians might have went in for when writing stories of Jesus.

LAYMAN
'He also sent home categories of men as Moses did in Deut. 20:5-8 and Gideon did in Judge 7:1-8.'

CARR
Ttake Chapter 2 Verse 249 of the Qur'an, which is about the first king of Israel, called Talut in the Qu'ran.

So when Talut departed with the forces, he said: Surely Allah will try you with a river; whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me, except he who takes with his hand as much of it as fills the hand; but with the exception of a few of them they drank from it. So when he had crossed it, he and those who believed with him, they said: We have today no power against Jalut and his forces. Those who were sure that they would meet their Lord said: How often has a small party vanquished a numerous host by Allahs permission, and Allah is with the patient.

This is very reminiscent of what Gideon did in Judges 7:1-8.

Should we rule it out as not being historical? (Jalut is the Arabic name for Goliath) Or should we suspend judgement?

Steven Carr

And that makes Eusebius relevant because.....?

Vinnie

Its pointless for layman to keep responding to these caricatures of his position. Did you misread his point that bad?

Carr: There are examples of Christians and Jews regarding historical events as prophecy fulfillments.

Therefore no Christians or Jews embellished stories to make them look like they conformed to prophecy.

Therefore no one invented anything? Where could you have possible gleaned that conclusion from? Layman said nothing remotely close to that.

You are erring to the opposite extreme of the one he is critiquing. I do NOT remember him saying Jewish people never made up facts or that early Christians or Jewish people of the first century were not creative.

He stated that because something is viewed in light of the OT it does not necessaarily make it fiction. Just that it is very possible an historical event was seen in terms of sacred scripture. Why? Because he demonstrated examples where this was done! Probably he is saying Doherty is too wild in his appeals to "this occurs in OT so its fiction." There is no control. Just rampant hand waiving in light of the OT--most intense regarding the HISTORICAL FACT that Jesus was crucified.

Vinnie

Layman

It is pointless. And of course he's not misreading.

Vinnie

I would add the crucifixion of Jesus to your list layman. Its another example of how Jews and Christians alike used the Old Testament to describe historical events.

Vinnie