1. No factual basis
First, since Schonfield rejects the testimony of the Gospels,44 he presents no valid basis on which to assert that Jesus’ original teachings were different from what traditional Christianity believes about him. The problem here is actually twofold. Initially, Schonfield is opposed by all of the evidence for the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Gospels (and the New Testament). Additionally, and more specifically, how can one rule out the Gospels’ testimony and still have a basis on which to assert that the original teachings of Jesus were different? How can Schonfield know that Jesus did not present the message of the Gospels? What is his basis of comparison between Jesus and what the earliest sources say about him? It becomes apparent that there are no grounds of distinction between Jesus and the Gospels.
Schonfield might respond that Jesus could not have taught the message that traditional Christianity affirms, since it was contrary to what first century Jews believed. Yet Schonfield uses the Gospels to establish this response,45 a basis which he rejects. And since it is not proper hermeneutical method to pick and choose the verses which one will accept and those which one will reject, he is again left without any valid basis for his position.
For those who contend that the Gospels are dependable sources that reveal a non-divine Jesus and that Paul (and others) perverted this message, it should be mentioned here that even the synoptic Gospels reveal that Jesus claimed deity for himself. For example, he referred to himself as “Son of God” and “Son of Man,” he taught that salvation was found only in himself and claimed that only he had the power to forgive sin.46 He certainly claimed to be in a privileged relationship with God; his usage of “Abba” (Aramaic for “Daddy”) is a very unusual name for God and is an indication of his unique sonship, as many critical scholars admit.47
At any rate, we cannot follow Schonfield and attempt to divorce Jesus’ message from what the earliest sources indicate concerning him, for in so doing we destroy the basis that is needed to establish that division. Additionally, to assume that Jesus did not consider himself deity while ruling out the Gospels, is to do so on the grounds of the presumed first century Jewish thought, which is a circular argument that presupposes Jesus did not teach anything different. This is the very point to be demonstrated.
2. No evidence for the Roman plot
Second, there is no evidence for any such plot on the part of Christians at Rome, as presumed by Schonfield. Of course, one can argue anything without the appropriate support, but others are not obliged to accept it. Similarly, no one is constrained to accept Schonfield’s thesis without the proper evidence.
Since we do not know that Jesus denied deity and especially since there are reasons to assert that he did claim such deity then why would there be a need for Roman Christians to “invent” the message? In other words, we can only begin to contemplate the alteration of Jesus’ words if we know that he did not teach the message of his deity in the first place. But since the point is invalid, as just shown, one cannot leap to the next step of a conspiracy by the Christians at Rome.
3. Paul attests to Jesus’ deity
Third, the Pauline epistles, which even Schonfield accepts as valid texts, attest to the orthodox view of Jesus’ deity. Thus, while Schonfield holds that Paul followed Jesus’ own teachings in rejecting the deity of the Messiah,48 the writings of Paul which are accepted by Schonfield teach otherwise. This is revealed by even a brief survey. In Romans 1:3-4, Paul gives Jesus the titles “Son,” “Lord” and “Christ.” Although completely ignored by Schonfield in a treatment of this verse,49 the usage of “Lord,” in particular, indicates Paul’s view of Jesus’ deity. As said Oscar Cullmann in his classic Christology, this term indicates that Paul could give Jesus the title of “God,” since “Lord” itself “clearly expresses Jesus’ deity.”50
Even stronger is Paul’s statement in Romans 9:5, where Jesus is, in all probability, actually called “God.”51 Similarly, Paul affirms Christ’s full deity in Colossians 2:9. While Schonfield clearly mistranslates this latter verse,52 Cullmann, agreeing with virtually all scholars, renders the key phrase as “the whole fullness of deity dwelt bodily” in Jesus Christ.53 As philologist A.T. Robertson points out, this verse indicates that all the fullness of the very essence of God dwells in Jesus in bodily form.54 These two references, in particular, reveal Paul’s view of the full deity of Jesus.
Other passages are additionally helpful. Philippians 2:6-11 asserts that Jesus has the form or very nature of God and commends worship of the exalted Jesus. In Colossians 1:15, Paul points out that Jesus is the “image of God” and in 2 Corinthians 12:8, Paul prays to Christ.55 By these means, then, Paul does teach the deity of Jesus. This is not a doctrine added by unscrupulous Christians from Rome, but a teaching of Jesus himself and of Paul.
4. Jesus’ claim to deity
Fourth, even if a divine messiah was not what first century Jews were looking for, there is a good reason why Jesus may still have made this very claim, as the evidence indicates he did. If he was truly deity, then he may have been attempting to correct the first century Jewish understanding of the messiah. And if he was, in fact, raised from the dead, this at least raises the possibility that his claims were verified. Again, any verification of Jesus’ teachings is beyond the scope of this book, but if the resurrection is demonstrated as history, then claims in this area can no longer be disregarded.56 Schonfield might then have to face his thesis in reverse.
At any rate, Schonfield’s thesis (as well as others who claim that Jesus’ teachings were changed) is invalid. This is especially so when the Gospels have been rejected, for there is then no basis for this conclusion. It is thereby circular to assume that Jesus’ views did not differ from first century Jews, for this is the very point to be demonstrated. But then the presumed plot of the Christians at Rome also fails because there is no evidence that Jesus did not teach his own deity. In fact, there is much evidence in the Gospels that he did teach this.
If one rejects the Gospels there is little basis for rejecting the traditional Christian testimony concerning Jesus, and we arrive at a circular argument. If the texts are accepted, then we are faced with Jesus’ claims to be deity. Additionally, Paul’s firm teaching on the deity of Jesus invalidates this thesis, as does a possible verification of Jesus’ claims if his resurrection is demonstrated as historical.
Paul did not corrupt Jesus’ teachings
It should be carefully noted, however, that Schonfield represents only one version of the thesis that Jesus’ message was changed. This claim is a very common one. In general, the frequent charge is that Paul either originated or corrupted Christianity, usually on the subjects of the deity of Jesus and the nature and extent of the gospel message. It is to this more general charge that we wish to offer seven brief critiques.
(1) It has been mentioned above that Jesus made various statements regarding his own deity. He claimed to be the Son of Man, the Son of God, to forgive sin and that he was the actual means of salvation. There are also additional indications of his own teachings concerning his deity, such as his use of the word “Abba.” It is quite significant that Jesus’ first century contemporaries were convinced of his claim to deity (Mark 2:6-7; John 5:17-18).57 Therefore, the thesis which asserts that the deity of Jesus is a later doctrine fails largely at this point.