48 Schonfield, Those Incredible Christians, pp. 98, 257.
49 Ibid., p. 155.
50 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, transl. by Shirley Guthrie and Charles Hall (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 311–312.
51 Ibid., pp. 312–313; Raymond E. Brown, Jesus: God and Man(Milwaukee: Bruce, 1967), pp. 20–22.
52 Schonfield, Those Incredible Christians, p. 252.
53 Cullmann, Christology, p. 311.
54 A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), vol. 4, p. 491.
55 Cullmann, Christology, pp. 235, 311–312.
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. (2) Numerous ancient, pre-Pauline creeds also teach the full deity of Jesus. Philippians 2:6–11 not only attributes Old Testament praise of God (as the one true
