Yeshua/Jesus – The Prophets and Eusebius [part 21]
Author: C.C. Saint-Clair
Besides switching the dark powers of Yeshua, the sorcerer, to the occult white magic of the good Jesus, miracle-worker, switching the charge of profanation to the charge of blasphemy, changing the mode of execution from the stoning of the Hebrew culture to the crucifixion favored by Roman law, and changing the site of the execution from Lud to Jerusalem, the main plot beats of the gospels were indeed as familiar to the Jews then as now.
As an aside, it is quite likely that in today’s Courts of Law, the writers of the New Testament, from Mark to John and Eusebius, would be charged with the offence of plagiarism.
If there is to this day no proof of an historical Jesus having ever existed, it does make reasonable sense to assume that the prototype inspiration was derived from a few, real or mythical, heroes gleamed mostly from the multitudinous pages of Jewish Scriptures and related Rabbinical treaties.
In fact, one pernicious possibility is that the aim of the gospel writers from Mark to John and later by the Church Fathers might have been to create a spiritual hero in such a way that through the narration of their cumulative writings his life and his destiny – as a Christian emblem – appeared to be the unequivocal realisation of Jewish prophecies such as those of Isaiah 2:11, 42, Isaiah 53 and Micah 5:2 and Jeremiah 30 and a plethora of other verses written five hundred years earlier.
Why reinvent the wheel, the Church Fathers might have thought, and create a new dogma when that of the Israelites spun such good values and had been made them resilient through centuries of utmost adversity?
All except but the truly hard signs of commitment to the Faith could be adapted. The truly hard signs such as the compulsory circumcision of infants at the age of 8 days and of any adult wishing to ‘convert’, the mitvots and the mikvehs could all be dispensed and presto – the Church Fathers had a new, easy, very accommodating religion to push through their interpretation of a mashiah.
As it is, the prophets’ visions were mostly focussed on the much anticipated arrival of their Jewish messiah – a person of flesh and blood – a true leader of men and of their hearts who would redeem Israel and those who had lived by the Torah. There is no allusion to any resurrection in either Talmud of Torah.
No Jewish scripture and no orthodox Jew can ever conceived the notion of a supernatural savior born from a god to form a holy trilogy/trinity. Not anymore than finding acceptable the shedding of blood, the symbolic drinking of blood, the worship of idols, be they on a cross or in any other form. Such notions would have been understandably a lot more relevant and appealing to freshly converted pagan minds than to Jews who had been steeped in their religion-driven culture for millennia.
In fact, the words in Jeremiah 30, as understood by the people from within which they originated many centuries earlier, are about the abandonment of Israel by all and the promise of its restoration as a nation – not about the Suffering Servant of God:
12 “This is what the LORD says: “‘Your wound is incurable, your injury beyond healing.
13 There is no one to plead your cause, no remedy for your sore, no healing for you.
14 All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you.
Ultimately, it is Eusebius of Caesarea, a Roman historian who became a leading Church Father circa 300 BC who gave these texts the final ‘brush over’. The favor he carried with the then Emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, encouraged him to canonize what was to become known as the New testament – four hundred years AD.