Josephus and Christ
Is the record that Josephus gives in his "Antiquities," Book XVIII, chapter 3, paragraph 3, and chapter 5, paragraph 2, concerning Christ and John the Baptist, authentic? Can we depend on the statements made in the Slavonic version?
Anyone wishing to go into this question in detail would do well to consult J. W. Jack, "The Historic Christ," London (Jas. Clarke & Co., 1933), who takes Eisler seriously to task for rejecting the references to Josephus mentioned above, and for trying to reconstruct the original text from the Slavonic version.
This Slavonic version of Josephus' "Jewish War" was published in Russia in 1866 by A. N. Popov, and was made more accessible in 1906 by A. Berendts of Dorpat. In this there are many variations from the standard Greek text. In 1924-28 Schiirer, Holtzmann, Baur, Reville, and other authorities on Jewish history and Christian apocryphal writings, rejected Berendts' attempt to declare the Slavonic text the original. In 1925 Eisler began publishing his studies on this Slavonic version, which culminated in his ponderous work, "The Messiah Jesus" (1931). In these, he felt that by removing certain interpolations, he had reconstructed the primitive Josephus text. Jack feels that Eisler, wishing to blot out any historical reference to Christ, has made his witnesses perjure themselves in the interests of this "cause." By accepting the evidences of his various witnesses, Eisler adopts 21 A.D. as the date of the crucifixion, and places Pilate's procuratorship in 19 A.D. He places the birth of Christ in 6 or 7 A.D., and the death of John the Baptist in 35 A.D. He says the Gospel writers have deliberately placed the death of John the Baptist before the death of Christ, to prevent John's disciples' claiming the miracles of Christ to have been performed by John; also to uphold the resurrection of Jesus.
A great deal of research on this subject has also been carried on by Solomon Zeitlin in his "Josephus on Jesus" (Philadelphia: Dropsic College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1931). He made a special trip to Russia to examine this Slavonic version, and he presents an abundant amount of evidence that Eisler's idea is erroneous and that the Christian passages in this version could not have been written by Josephus. No Hebraisms were found, but plenty of Hellenisms (pages 25-27).
Eisler thinks that Josephus wrote a book on the capture of Jerusalem for the Jews in Babylon, and that for the Romans he prepared a different edition of the "Jewish Wars." The former was later translated into Greek, and then from Greek into Russian. Thus this Slavonic version is based on a book other than the extant Greek. Zeitlin shows how untenable this position is (pages 31-36). He thinks the author of the "Christian passages" in the Slavonic version was acquainted with and used the aprocryphal Gospels, the writings of the church fathers, and perhaps the Acts of Pilate (pages 37, 38).
At present there seems to be no evidence of any Greek version apart from the standard one already known, and one may safely disregard the theories of Eisler, and consider the "Christian passages" in the Slavonic versions as unauthentic.
LYNN H. Wood. [Theological Seminary.]
Kneeling at Communion
Why do some Protestant bodies kneel to partake of the sacraments, and other communicants simply remain seated?
The primitive church regarded the communion simply as a memorial meal, partaken of around a table, as in the upper room. Later the idea was developed that in some mystical way the bread and wine had become the very body and blood of Jesus. Thus the receiving of the sacraments came to be regarded not only as a communion, but as an act of adoration. It was not only natural but inevitable that with the changed concept kneeling should replace the earlier simplicity of sitting. Dr. Harold P. Sloan, editor of the New York Christian Advocate, has written a brief but comprehensive statement on the attitude assumed at the Reformation period, which has a bearing on the question. His fourfold segregation follows:
At the Reformation the Lutheran and Anglican Churches did not depart so radically from tradition as did the Zwinglian and Calvinistic churches. Luther, in particular, only changed Rome's transsubstantiation into consubstantiation, which preserved as fully mystical a doctrine of the elements : consequently the natural posture for the communicant in these branches of Protestantism continued to be that of kneeling. Methodism, through the Church of England, is continuous with the Roman tradition and practice at this point. Zwingli broke quite away from the mystical tradition, and taught that the communion was simply a memorial meal. Calvin took a mediating position between Luther and Zwingli. The four positions might be described thus:
1. Rome teaches that the bread and wine in their essential nature cease, and that they become the real body and blood of the crucified Son of God. For Rome, the sacrifice of Golgotha is perpetually renewed in the mass.
2. Zwingli denied any divine presence whatsoever, making the elements just symbols through which Christian men put into expression the redemptive sacrifice of their Lord.
For Calvinists, consequently, kneeling before the elements seemed a sort of idolatry. It was according worship to a mere symbol, rather than to Christ alone.
3. Luther taught that the bread and wine remain in their essential nature; but that the reality of Christ is added to them, so that He is present in them.
4. Calvin insisted upon the presence of Christ, but left it undefined. He probably would have said He was present under the symbol of bread and wine much as He is present also in His Word.
Christ's Pierced Feet
Is there Biblical evidence that Christ's feet as well as His hands were nailed to the cross?
This question was raised by a reader of the Sunday School Times, in which journal (March 12, 1938) we find the following satisfactory answer:
"One of the most remarkable prophecies in the entire Bible is Psalm 22. It was written by David, who lived a thousand years before Christ became man, and by divine inspiration it describes in minute detail the crucifixion of Christ and His physical and spiritual sufferings. The psalm begins with the words spoken by our Lord on the cross : 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ?' Matt. 27:46. . . . It continues with a description of the sufferings of death by crucifixion: . . . 'They pierced My hands and My feet.' . . . Dr. Scofield comments on Psalm 22, as 'a graphic picture of death by crucifixion,' that 'when it is remembered that crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish, form of execution, the proof of inspiration is irresis'ible!
"When the risen Lord Jesus appeared to His disciples after His crucifixion, and 'they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit,' He quieted their fears, saying : 'Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself : handle Me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet.' Luke 24: 39, 40.
"Any attempt to prove that our Lord's feet were not nailed to the cross betrays a strange ignorance of plain statements in the Bible."
In addition to Biblical evidence, there are, of course, conclusive statements from the Spirit of prophecy : "They will see the prints of the nails in His hand and in His feet, and where they thrust the spear into His side."—"Early Writings," p. 53. "One reminder alone remains : our Redeemer will ever bear the marks of His crucifixion. Upon His wounded head, upon His side, His hands and feet, are the only traces of the cruel work that sin has wrought." —"The Great Controversy," p. 674.
