Isaiah 53: Why Gods Suffering Servant Is Not Israel

Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical language that often involves multiple layers of meaning. Here’s a case in point. Isaiah 49.3 does mention the suffering servant as “Israel.” But four verses later the servant begins to take on unique individual qualities and characteristics that decidedly distinguish him from the earlier collective qualities of the nation of Israel. In fact, he is later contrasted with the nations, described with a masculine pronoun as an individual person who is “deeply despised” and rejected. Isa. 49.7 reads as follows:

Thus says the Lord, the

Redeemer of Israel and

his Holy One, to one

deeply despised,

abhorred by the nations,

the slave of rulers, ‘Kings

shall see and stand up,

princes, and they shall

prostrate themselves,

because of the Lord, who

is faithful, the Holy One

of Israel, who has chosen

you.’ [1]

This rejection is given more full treatment in chapter 53. So, the question arises: How can he be both a human being and the nation of *Israel* at the same time? Answer: He cannot!

In other words, as these chapters begin to unfold, the image of the *suffering servant* evolves considerably, so much so that he’s later described with a masculine personal pronoun and depicted as an individual *man,* indeed a male: “He” (Hb. הוּא hu, which is the equivalent of the Greek αὐτὸς).[2] Therefore, it behooves us to read the Isaian passage (53.3-8) in its entirety:

He was despised and rejected by others; a

man of suffering and acquainted with

infirmity; and as one from whom others hide

their faces he was despised, and we held

him of no account. Surely he has borne our

infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we

accounted him stricken, struck down by

God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for

our transgressions, crushed for our

iniquities; upon him was the punishment

that made us whole, and by his bruises we

are healed. All we like sheep have gone

astray; we have all turned to our own way,

and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of

us all. He was oppressed, and he was

afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like

a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like

a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so

he did not open his mouth. By a perversion

of justice he was taken away. Who could

have imagined his future? For he was cut

off from the land of the living, stricken for

the transgression of my people.

Does this sound like a characterization of a nation, let alone that of Israel? On the contrary, the suffering servant is described in the third-person singular with the masculine personal pronoun “he,” in the sense that it is he who “is led to the slaughter” (Isa. 53.7), not the nation of Israel! He is also described as “a man.” The third-person masculine pronoun “he” is then reiterated in v. 8 in order to establish not only the male identity of the suffering servant but also his personal demise:

For he was cut off from the land of the living

[slain], stricken for the transgression of my

people.

In this particular context, it cannot be a nation that is “cut off from the land of the living . . . for the transgression of” the people. That would strain the contextual meaning to give it a rather absurd interpretation. This is Atonement language regarding a specific man who is slain, and who dies as a sin offering! Isaiah 53.5 adds that his punishment “made us whole,” and “by his bruises we are healed”:

He was wounded for our transgressions,

crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the

punishment that made us whole, and by his

bruises we are healed.

We would normally expect to find this type of language——describing an explicit sacrifice as an atonement for sin——in the New Testament, not in the Hebrew Bible. For the aforementioned reasons, this passage does not square well with the so-called “nation of Israel” philological exegesis. This Hebraic insistence on the nation of Israel is therefore utterly disingenuous and dishonest!

——-

Past Tenses Do Not Imply Past Actions

——-

Insofar as the New Testament is concerned, verbal aspect theory, which is at the cutting edge of Hellenistic Greek linguistics, demonstrates that tense-forms do not have any temporal implications. According to Stanley E Porter, a leading authority on New Testament linguistics, past tenses are not necessarily references to past history:

Temporal values (past, present, future) are

not established in Greek by use of the

verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone. This

may come as a surprise to those who, like

most students of Greek, were taught at an

elementary level that certain tense-forms

automatically refer to certain times when an

action occurs. [3]

In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past history! Similarly, Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have tenses. It’s an “aspectual” language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future! In fact, prophecies are sometimes written in the past tense. Bottom line, one cannot use the past-tense argument to demonstrate that the authorial intent precludes prophetic material.

Conclusion

Isaiah is seemingly writing about prophecy, and the suffering servant is clearly not the nation of Israel but rather a male individual (cf. Rev. 12.5) whose sin offering (Isa. 53.6) is described as a sacrifice for the sins of the people (cf. Rom. 3.23-25; Heb. 9.26b)! He is also described as “a lamb that is led to the slaughter,” reminiscent of the “lamb without . . . blemish” (1 Pet. 1.19; cf. Lev. 4.32), the so-called sin offering sacrifice according to the Mosaic Law! Upon further scrutiny, Isaiah 49 ff. and, especially, Isaiah 53 are explicit references that are more in line with New Testament Soteriology than with the Judaic interpretation of the nation of Israel!

In fact, according to “The Dying Messiah Redux” article, by atheist historian Richard Carrier, the notion of a dying messiah predates Christianity and can also be found in the Talmud: “b.Sanhedrin 98b explicitly says the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the messiah.” What is more, “b.Sanhedrin 93b says the messiah will endure great suffering . . . and b.Sukkah 52a-b likewise has a dying-and-rising ‘Christ son of Joseph’ ideology in it . . . even saying (quoting Zechariah 12:10) that this messiah will be ‘pierced’ to death.” Carrier concludes:

there is no plausible way later Jews would

invent interpretations of their scripture that

supported and vindicated Christians. They

would not invent a Messiah with a father

named Joseph who dies and is resurrected.

They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be

about the messiah and admit that Isaiah

there predicted the messiah would die and

be resurrected. That was the very chapter

Christians were using to prove their case

(and which scholars like Bart Ehrman keep

insisting only Christians saw as messianic).

So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief

that predates Christian evangelizing, even if

the evidence survives only in later sources.

——-

Notes

1 All Scripture quotes are from Michael D. Coogan (ed.), “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha”: New Revised Standard Version (4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford U., 2010).

2 The Hebrew text is from Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph (eds.), “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia” (4th rev. edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967-77).

3 Stanley E. Porter, “Idioms of the Greek New Testament” (2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), p. 25.

——-

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

By Author Eli Kittim

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

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

Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

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

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

us men, and for our salvation, came down

from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy

Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, he was crucified for us under Pontius

Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and

the third day he rose again, according to

the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory,

to judge the quick and the dead.

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

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

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels

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

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

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eli of Kittim

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

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

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

Visions of the Resurrection

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

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph Bultmann,

‘The New Testament and Mythology,’ in

Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate,

ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H.

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

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

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

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have

seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

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

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

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

183-184).

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

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

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

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

Conclusion

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

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

Where Was Tarshish Located?

By Author Eli Kittim

In Second Chronicles 9.21, the Septuagint (LXX L.C.L. Brenton) translates the Hebrew “Tarshish” (תַּרְשִׁ֔ישׁ BHS) as Θαρσεῖς. The location of Θαρσεῖς——according to Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (LCL 242: 62-63)——was in Tarsus Cilicia (the birth place of Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul the Apostle; Acts 22.3) in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), near the Mediterranean Sea. Greeks comprised a large portion of the population. It was a Greek colony. So, Tarshish does not appear to be in Spain as some commenters have suggested:

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-jewish_antiquities/1930/pb_LCL242.63.xml

In Jonah 1.3 (LXX), the term “Tarshish” is spelled Tharsis and translated in the Greek as Θαρσὶς. In the Bible, Tarshish is said to comprise a cluster of islands: “For the coastlands shall wait for me, the ships of Tarshish first” (Isa. 60.9 NRSV cf. Isa. 23.6). The great ships of Tarshish are also mentioned in Isa. 2.16. Then, as now, Greece controlled one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. Moreover, according to Gen. 10.4, Tarshish was one of “The descendants of Javan [Greece]: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim [Cyprus], and Rodanim [Rhodes]” (cf. 1 Chr 1.7)!

Conclusion

Thus, both the internal and external evidence strongly suggest that Tarshish was located on the southern part of Anatolia, and that the region had undergone Greek ‘colonization’ by Greek and Aegean settlers:

https://research-bulletin.chs.harvard.edu/2017/08/02/rough-cilicia/

After all, Ionia itself——located on the western coast of Anatolia in present-day Turkey——comprised the territories of the Ionian League of Greek settlements. As far back as 600–480 BCE, Greeks had settled on the shores and islands of the eastern Aegean Sea.

—————

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

The New Testament: Book by Book

Matthew.

Place Written: Antioch?

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he is the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.

Mark.

Place Written: Rome?

Written in 70 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Mark, the personal secretary of the apostle Peter. The earliest record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which portrays him as the messiah no one expected or understood, who was sent to die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead.

Luke.

Place Written: Antioch.

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he was the final prophet sent from God, destined to be rejected by his own people so salvation would go to gentiles.

John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written in 90-95 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection focusing on his identity as a pre-existent divine being sent from above to bring eternal life to all who believe in him.

Acts.

Place Written: Rome.

Written in 85-90 CE.

Author: anonymous: same author as Gospel of Luke. An account of the miraculous spread of the Christian church after Jesus’ resurrection, through the preaching and miracles of the apostles, especially Paul, who took the message to gentiles.

Romans.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written 60-64 CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the Christian church of Rome to explain the essentials of Paul’s gospel message, that only the death of Jesus can bring salvation from sin, for both Jews and gentiles.

1 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the church in Corinth, in response to numerous problems experienced after Paul’s departure, including divisions in the church, sexual immorality, proper worship, and the reality of the future resurrection.

2 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians, which attacks “super-apostles” who claim precedence over Paul and explains that followers of Jesus in this age will experience hardship rather than glory.

Galatians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written with urgency to gentile churches throughout region of Galatia to attack those arguing that gentile Christians must adopt the ways of Judaism, especially circumcision.

Ephesians.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter to church of Ephesus, giving a plea for the unity provided by Christ and the free salvation he provides, to a church experiencing splits between Jewish and gentile factions.

Philippians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Joyful letter thanking the church in Philippi for its moral and material support and urging church unity among members who should live for others in imitation of Christ.

Colossians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter urging Christians in Colossae not to worship spiritual powers other than Christ, who alone provides all that is needed for salvation and spiritual completion.

1 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: 49-50 CE.

Author: Paul. Paul’s earliest letter. A joyful recollection of his time with the church, stressing the imminent arrival of Christ from heaven and the salvation he will then bring, even to believers who had already died.

2 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: ca 70s CE?

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Written in imitation of 1 Thessalonians, an appeal to Christians not to think the return of Christ is immediate. The end is coming, but it will be preceded by clear signs.

1 Timothy.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Allegedly written to Paul’s young follower Timothy, pastor of church in Ephesus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

2 Timothy.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 Timothy and Titus, also addressed to Timothy, giving Paul’s final thoughts and instructions as he is preparing soon to die.

Titus.

Place Written: Macedonia?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 and 2 Timothy. Addressed to Paul’s follower Titus, pastor of church on Cyprus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

Philemon.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Letter written to a wealthy Christian, Philemon, urging him to receive back and forgive his slave Onesimus, who had absconded with his property and fled to Paul for help.

Hebrews.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author: Anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Paul. A plea to readers not to leave the Christian faith for Judaism, since Christ is superior to everything in the Hebrew Bible, which foreshadowed the salvation he would bring.

James.

Place Written: unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown, in the name of Jesus’ brother James. A moral essay correcting Christians who believed that “faith alone” would save, by stressing the need to do “good works,” since faith without works “is dead.”

1 Peter.

Place Written: Babylon/Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter encouraging Christians experiencing suffering for their faith, emphasizing that Christ himself suffered, as would all those who strive to be his witnesses in the world.

2 Peter.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: ca. 120 CE.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter explaining why the “imminent” return of Jesus had not yet happened, assuring its readers that a delay was necessary but all was going according to God’ plan.

1 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An essay written to urge followers of Jesus to be fulling loving to one another and not to be led astray by a separatist faction that suggested Jesus was a phantasmal being and not fully human.

2 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Brief letter addressing a church leader’s community urging unity in love and the avoidance of false teaching.

3 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Very brief letter addressing similar issues of 2 John in light of a specific problem, the reception of a visiting church leader who was rejected by some in the congregation.

Jude.

Place Written: Unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; in the name of Jude, the brother of Jesus. Brief and vitriolic letter attacking false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian community, without indicating the nature of their teaching.

Revelation.

Place Written: Patmos Island.

Written 90-95 CE.

Author: an unknown John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple, John the Son of Zebedee. A description of mysterious visions of the heavenly realm and the cataclysmic disasters to strike the earth before all God’s enemies are destroyed and a new utopian world arrives for the followers of Christ.

Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman (edited)

——-

Conclusion

Most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! Astoundingly, not a single New Testament Book was ever written in Palestine by a Jew! Not one! Not even the letters of James and Jude. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of these epistles could not have possibly been written by Jerusalem Jews! Besides, according to Bart Ehrman, “most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write. They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it.”

What is more, there are more Epistles addressed to Greek communities than any other: 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. And most of the New Testament letters are written in Greece. Nine in all! It’s also important to note that when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the Hebrew scriptures per se. It’s true that Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! This indicates that the New Testament authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. This lends plausibility to the argument that the New Testament authors were not Hebrews, but Greeks! For example, it could be argued that the “New Perspective on Paul” needs to be revisited, given Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers, his extraordinary command of the Greek language, his extensive quotations from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Bible, as well as the puzzling discrepancies regarding his supposed Jewish identity (cf. Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 9.20)!

To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by non-Jews who used the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. It seems, then, that the New Testament is an entirely sui generis Greek Book, which was largely composed in Greece by Greeks. Thus, the Greek origin of the New Testament speaks volumes about its Hellenistic *messianic* message, ideas, and content!

——-

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

By Author Eli Kittim

Christological readings

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

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

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

Know therefore and understand: from the

time that the word went out to restore and

rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an

anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks;

and . . . sixty-two weeks . . .

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

After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one

shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and

the troops of the prince who is to come shall

destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end

shall come with a flood, and to the end

there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.

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

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

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

Criticisms of the 70-Weeks Prophecy Historical Interpretations

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

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

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

The Historical Model: Sleight of Hand Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Futurist Eschatology of Daniel 9

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

. . . the original writes ἕως τῆς συντελείας,

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

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

So consider the word and understand the

vision: ‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your

people and your holy city: to finish the

transgression, to put an end to sin, and to

atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting

righteousness, to seal both vision and

prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.’

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

The question is twofold:

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

1) is it referring to the nation of Israel?

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

Possible Answers:

1) Israel 1947/8

2) Jerusalem 1967/8

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

How Can Weeks Be Interpreted as Years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we know which date is correct?

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

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

The days of our life are seventy years, or

perhaps eighty, if we are strong;

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

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

You are not yet fifty years old, and have you

seen Abraham?

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

Conclusion

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

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

At that time Michael, the great prince, the

protector of your people, shall

arise.

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

The Quran’s Alternative Christianity

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Christianity’s Influence on the Quran

Although polytheism was the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran was diametrically opposed to this view and superseded it with its own brand of monotheism. The unknown author(s) of the Quran was obviously influenced by the Gnostic religion of the Mandaeans, who are sometimes called "Christians of Saint John," and by that of the Sabians or Manichaeans, who revered certain prophets, such as Zoroaster and Jesus. Despite these strong surrounding influences, however, the author(s) of the Quran seems to gravitate towards the Judeo-Christian Bible, paying special attention to the Jesus story and accepting even some of its more miraculous or fantastic elements, such as the virgin birth and the 2nd coming. That’s a clue that Christianity made a greater impact on the author(s) of the Quran than, say, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, or Mazdakism! If, on the other hand, the author(s) of the Quran had used Judaism as a prototype of his new religion, then, in principle, he would never have accepted the Christian claims. Besides, Islam doesn’t show strict adherence to circumcision or the Law. And even though Moses and Abraham are mentioned more times than Jesus in the Quran, it’s rather obvious that Christianity had made a deeper impact on the author(s) than any other religion! And just as Christianity accepted the Hebrew Bible, so did the Quran.

——-

A Christian Revolt

Do you really know what the Quran is? Answer: the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. No wonder its adherents hated Constantinople so vigorously that they finally sacked it in 1453 ce. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects.

——-

The Apocryphal Reformation

After the 4th-Century Church solidified itself theologically and otherwise within the Roman Empire and began to accept certain “canonical” texts while excluding others, those communities that held to the *rejected* gnostic and so-called “apocryphal” works eventually united to form their own Bible. The result was the Quran, which was mostly based on a variety of Jewish and Christian apocryphal and Gnostic texts!

Over time, Islam gradually lost it’s connection to Christianity (much like Christianity did when it broke away from Judaism) and became an independent religion in its own right. It may have been more Christ-centered at the beginning. But in order to distinguish itself from its rival Christian counterparts it would have had to significantly deemphasize its central Christian tenets. So, the first communities that gave rise to the Quran most probably comprised Gnostic Christians. Thus, the author of the Quran may have been seeking to take revenge on his Orthodox superiors, much like what a disgruntled Christian priest would do at a local church. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind and, with him, the Protestant Reformation!

——-

The Beginning of Islam as a Christian Minority Religion

No wonder the Quran reveres the Christian dogmas of the virgin birth and the second coming of Jesus, while putting less emphasis on the historical Jesus, his atonement, and his divinity! And the Islamic traditions begin to make more sense from this perspective, as, for example, when the Nestorian monk Bahira in Bosra foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career. And just as Orthodoxy condemned the Gnostic Christian texts as *heretical* and *uninspired*, Islam must have fired back at them alleging that the so-called “canonical Christian texts” themselves were *corrupt*. It seems, then, that Islam itself came out of these early Gnostic-Nestorian Christian roots! In other words, even though it now openly competes with Christianity for converts, originally, Islam must have been a Christian minority religion on the fringes of the Eastern Roman Empire that was well-aware of all the debates that were raging all around them.

——-

The New Testament Epistles Concur with the Apocryphal Texts that Undergird the Quran

As an offshoot of Christian Gnosticism, with an emphasis on personal existential experience rather than reason or doctrine, the Quran was, perhaps, closer to the truth than the pontifical, dogmatic Christianity of the Roman Empire. Gnosis, after all, was all about knowing rather than believing. And just because the Gnostic Christian texts were rejected by the church does not necessarily mean that they were wholly uninspired. For example, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, as attested in the Quran (Sura 4:157-158), doubt the established Crucifixion story and, by implication, perhaps even Jesus’ historicity. In other words, the Quran picked up Docetic thoughts and Gnostic ideas and asserted that all the acts and sufferings of Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion, were mere appearances. This is a noteworthy observation because, unlike the theological gospels, the New Testament epistles also suggest that Christ did not die in antiquity. Rather, they claim that he will be revealed “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB) and will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b). This idea of an earthly, eschatological messiah is also echoed in the pseudepigraphical Jewish-Christian texts, The Ascension of Isaiah and the Testament of Solomon. But it had been subsequently suppressed by Orthodox Christianity, which confused theology with history, and turned prophecy into biography. So, in this sense, Islam was correct in maintaining that the New Testament had been corrupted: not the text itself, but rather it’s interpretation.

However, as time passed, and as Islam separated itself more and more from Christianity, it, too, began to lose touch with the central tenet of Christ’s divinity, while its adherents took too many liberties with the original doctrines and became less and less “Christian”! To the extent that Islam gravitated away from Christ as the focal point of its doctrines, it, too, became corrupt, so much so that the deity of Christ was completely ignored or denied. Eventually, the religion’s deity became more identified with the monotheistic God of the Jews than with that of the Christians. That was the beginning of something new: the birth of a new religion!

——-

Family Feud Among the Abrahamic Religions

To sum up, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the family of Abraham. Hence why they are called Abrahamic religions. Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, in turn, gave birth to Islam! But in the end, it’s like a dysfunctional family where the grandfather, father, and son can’t get along with each other.

——-