Some Thoughts on the Little Foxes, by Aaron Hecht

You don't hear too many sermons preached on the Song of Solomon, do you? Well, there are some really good reasons for that, actually, starting with the fact that this book in the Bible covers material that's more appropriate for private counseling sessions (especially pre-marital counseling) than for general interest. However, there's one passage that I heard a message on many years ago, and it came to my mind about a month ago when we were preparing to launch into a new year, and I thought about making some of those infamous "New Year's Resolutions."

The title of that sermon I heard many years ago was "Make war on the little foxes" and it was based on Song of Solomon 2:15; Catch us the foxes, The little foxes that spoil the vines, For our vines have tender grapes.

According to the interpretation of this message I heard many years ago (which I agreed with then and still do) the "little foxes" Solomon is referring to in this passage are the little, day to day habits that we all have which don't really create any serious problems of and by themselves, but when we do these "little" things on a regular or maybe even daily basis, over time, the impact they have accumulates and end up causing us big problems.

So, as the new year 2026 approached, I thought about what "little foxes" I had in my life that I could eliminate and, by eliminating them, slowly but surely eliminate the damage they were causing to my life.

I started with some low-hanging fruit, the bag of potato chips I used to buy for myself every time I went to the grocery store. This stupid little bag of chips "only" cost me six shekels and they "only" added about 180 calories to my daily intake. I "only" bought and ate them a few times a week, sometimes less, so it wasn't really such a big deal right?

Well, in the month of January, I didn't buy that little bag of potato chips when I went to the store. Instead, I made a hashmark in a little notebook every time I went to the store and DIDN'T buy a bag of chips. At the end of January, I was shocked to see that there were 19 hashmarks in that notebook. That meant I'd not spent  114 shekels on this "little fox" and I'd also not taken in 3,240 calories I didn't need, which is an entire day and a half worth of recommended caloric intake.

What's amazing is that occasionally, as I was eating those chips, I'd stop and think about how I really wasn't even enjoying them much, but I just had this habit of buying and eating them. Now, I have stopped, and I don't miss them at all.

There were a handful of other "little foxes" that I had less success eliminating. I still wasted too much time watching stupid videos on YouTube, and I bought a few things I probably didn't need, etc. But I reduced their presence in my life, and I have hope that in February, I will reduce them even more and maybe even eliminate them. In any case, my own personal "war on the Little Foxes" will definitely continue, and I have great hopes that by the end of the year, my bank account, my physical health, my daily schedule and many other things will be in better shape then they were on January 1st.

What are some "little foxes" that you can eliminate from your life? Let me know in the comments section, or if you don't want to, just think about it for yourself and determine to make war on them. You don't need to wait for a new year to start, you can do it right now.

Controversial 1st century passage about Jesus’s resurrection might be original after all

Wonderful news of illuminating new scholarship by religious studies professor T.C. Schmidt on Josephus and Jesus.

The Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37-100) is one of the most important historical sources of Jewish life, war, and religion in the 1st century. A member of the Jewish priestly class and military general in the failed war against Rome, he wrote over a half million words about Jewish life, including a controversial paragraph about Jesus.

Scholars have long thought that Josephus' writing about Jesus, called Testimonium Flavianum, was a later addition or editorial by Christian scribes. It seems too Christian for a non-Christian Jew like Josephus to write.

But new scholarship gives evidence that Josephus' famous Testimonium Flavianum is original and not a later addition as once thought. 

What's the new scholarship? 4 new pieces of evidence.

1. Manuscript evidence: Early Syriac and Latin translations of the original Greek attest to an original reading in which Josephus says Jesus was thought to be the Messiah.

2. Literary evidence: Computer literary analysis confirms the style, grammar, and word choices of the passage as authentic; a literary fingerprint unique to Josephus.

3. Greek evidence: When Josephus says Jesus appeared to his followers on the third day, he used the Greek word phaino, which connotes "something seeming to appear". This fits the style of Josephus and renders a non-committal take on the resurrection of Jesus; not out of place for a non-Christian Jew.

4. Insider Evidence: Where did Josephus get his information from? New scholarship shows it's from first-hand sources. Josephus' wartime commander was Ananus II, who Josephus records as having executed Jesus' half-brother James. He was the son of Ananus I, the same high priest who presided over Jesus' interrogation, and who's son-in-law was Caiaphas. Both appear in the Gospels (Luke 3 and John 18).

I'll give more details on each of these below. But first, for context, here's today's translation of Testimoniam Flavianum:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

It sounds very Christian. This has led scholars to suggest it's inauthentic; a later Christian addition or edit.

But T.C. Schmidt proposes that given this new evidence, Testimonium Flavianum should read as an authentic writing from Josephus:

And in this time, there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure. And he brought over many from amongst the Jews and many from amongst the Greeks. He was thought to be the Christ. And, when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the accusation of the first men amongst us, those who at first were devoted to him did not cease to be so, for on the third day it seemed to them that he was alive again given that the divine prophets had spoken such things and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And up till now the tribe of the Christians, who were named from him, has not disappeared.

1. Manuscript Evidence

In the traditional Testimonium Flavianum, the statement “He was the Christ” is the giveaway, so it was thought, that this couldn’t have been written by a non-Christian Jew like Josephus. The expression “a (mere) wise man” earlier in the paragraph fits Josephus’s likely view, but a declaration of messianic identity is out of place.

But Schmidt gathered all Latin and Syriac translations of Josephus' Antiquities. In these, he notes that Latin and Syriac manuscripts of this passage don’t have the clear affirmation “He was the Christ” but instead the more doubtful “He was believed to be [Latin] / thought to be [Syriac] the Christ.”

Given the early date of these renditions—AD 300s—and the unlikelihood that any Latin or Syriac Christian copyist would demote Jesus, it seems reasonable to conclude this was what Josephus wrote. In the Greek copying tradition, a single verb (legomenos, “called,” perhaps) appears to have dropped out, either by accident or intent.

2. Literary Evidence

A mathematical, computer-assisted literary analysis of the author's vocabulary and syntax suggest Testimonium is original.

Schmidt found that Josephus used a unique term every ~87 words throughout his corpus. Having a unique word, and a couple of rare words, in a 90-word paragraph is exactly what we’d expect. Schmidt even examined Josephus’s rate of using common words such as "and", "or", and "the"—and the Testimonium shows the same frequencies as the rest of his nearly half-million-word output. Josephus’s fingerprints are all over this contested paragraph.

3. Greek Evidence

Schmidt offers a Greek-language insight into the most obvious Christian interpolation: the statement typically translated “he appeared to them alive again on the third day.” The key verb is phainō—"to appear." Many scholars have reasonably noted that a non-Christian Jew like Josephus would never have said Jesus actually "appeared alive." -- too Christian!

But Schmidt argues that phainō in this context carries one of its other connotations, well attested in Greek writings from Plato (fourth century BC) to Origen (third century AD)—namely, to indicate "something seeming or appearing to be so (but which may not actually be so)."

That would mean Josephus isn’t claiming Jesus really was alive, any more than earlier in the paragraph he was claiming Jesus was actually the Christ. Rather, he’s reporting, in a noncommittal or even skeptical way, that “it seemed” to Jesus’s followers he was alive, just as they "believed" or "thought" Jesus to be the Christ. Schmidt gives examples of this usage in Josephus.

4. Insider Evidence

But even if Testimonium is original to Josephus, it doesn't mean Josephus got it right. After all, Josephus could just be reporting rumors he heard, or official stances from one or more groups.

But Schmidt argues convincingly that Josephus got his information about Jesus and the resurrection from first-hand sources.

Josephus moved within the priestly dynasty directly connected to both deaths. His wartime commander was Ananus II (Ananus the Younger), the high priest who ordered James’s execution. Ananus II was the son of Ananus I, Ananus the Elder, the former high priest who presided over Jesus’s interrogation (known as Annas in John 18:13). Ananus the Elder’s daughter married Caiaphas, the high priest named in the Gospels. Ananus II was therefore Caiaphas’s brother-in-law. Luke 3:2 and John 18:13 place Ananus and Caiaphas together at the apex of the priestly establishment.

Josephus twice calls Ananus II "the oldest of the chief priests" and notes his death in AD 68–69. Ananus II was likely in his 70s or 80s when he died, making him in his 30s or 40s around AD 30, fully adult and influential at the time of Jesus’s trial.

Therefore, Schmidt plausibly speculates that Ananus II (the Younger) might even have been a member of the Sanhedrin that handed Jesus over to Pilate. Whatever we make of that suggestion, Schmidt is right to note that Jewish law required families to keep the Passover meal in the patriarch’s house. This means Ananus II would have been at his father’s house on the night Jesus was brought there for questioning (John 18:13). Therefore, Schmidt writes, "Ananus II surely would have observed the portion of the proceedings held in his family’s patriarchal residence."

Conclusion

Absolutely fascinating new evidence that Josephus' words about Jesus are essentially authentic. It renders Josephus non-committal about Jesus; only saying he was called the Messiah and that it appeared to his followers that he was raised from the dead.

However, even this is remarkable, early attestation of Jesus and claims of his resurrection. Today, many atheists want to claim that Jesus was either entirely fabricated, or that his claims of messiahship or resurrection were later innovations or exaggerations.

The authenticity of Testimonium works against those claims. Remarkable!

Very grateful to T.S. Schmidt's work and its review by John Dickson in The Gospel Coalition.

A statement that demands a response by Aaron Hecht

Brothers and sisters, the Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches in Jerusalem have issued a public statement which expressed stern disapproval of Christian support for Zionism and less forthrightly but still unmistakably, the very existence of the State of Israel.

This is not unusual. 

Sadly, the "Apostolic" churches in Jerusalem are deeply invested in Replacement Theology and all kinds of other un-Biblical nonsense, including man-made traditions that their communities, both inside the Holy Land and outside of it, have been observing for so long that they've talked themselves into believing these traditions are more authoritative than the Bible itself. In fairness, this is no different, and certainly no worse, than what the Orthodox Jewish leadership has done by elevating their own man-made traditions above the Bible.

Moreover, the tone of this statement is also not unusual. These guys take themselves very seriously, and they seem to think everyone else should too.

In a way, their insistence on thinking themselves to be important because they're the traditional churches in the Holy Land is comparable to France insisting on believing that it is important because it has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In both cases, the present iteration of a certain institution is trying to point to the status it believes it inherited from a previous iteration, even though the previous iteration only got that way in the first place because of a confluence of events and circumstances that was purely accidental in the first place and not very relevant at the present time in any case. 

That having been said, you might be surprised to hear this, but I think they raise a valid point in this post. They say their communities have been here, maintaining a Christian presence in this country, for a long time, and so they have a valid right to speak up about this issue. I agree with that. But the point of disagreement is that they seem to think they're the ONLY ones who have any business speaking up on behalf of the Body of Christ in this country, and that is most certainly not the case.

Once again, however, fairness compels me to point out that they are, in part, speaking out because of a valid concern that the sheep of their flocks, both here in Israel and also in surrounding countries, could come in for some serious abuse by other factions if they do not give some rhetorical pushback against the Jewish State. Therefore, they also feel the need to speak out against leaders of Arab Christian communities who publicly support Israel.

I believe the specific individuals they are referring to in this statement, who are supporting Christian Zionism, are the leaders of Bethlehem Baptist Church. But there are also a handful of other Arab Christian clergy from mostly Protestant but also Greek Orthodox churches who are becoming more and more bold in speaking out in support of the State of Israel and even encouraging young Arab men and women in their congregations to volunteer to serve in the IDF.

The opposition of the "Apostolic" church leadership to this is understandable, given their previously mentioned devotion to Replacement Theology as well as their historic association with the cause of Arab Nationalism, which is another one of those "traditions" that they've been honoring for so long, they've talked themselves into believing it's even more important than the Bible itself.

Needless to say, the leaders of these "Apostolic" Churches would never dream of even acknowledging, much less taking seriously, the Messianic Jewish community in Israel, so I don't think this letter is addressed to us.

However, I DO think the leadership of the Jewish Believer community in Israel ought to respond to this letter. Candidly, the Jewish Believer community has more business speaking up on these issues than these "Apostolic" church leaders do. Maybe this could start by reminding the leaders of these "Apostolic" churches that all the original "Apostles" were all Jewish men, as was James, the little brother of Jesus, who was the first "Bishop" of the churches here in Jerusalem, whom the current "Apostolic" church leaders all claim to be the descendants of.

I have a lot more to say about this letter, but I kind of want to know what everyone else thinks. Please speak up in the comments section of this blog, and share it with others who might also have an opinion and/or a stake in this discussion. If you want to respond to the leadership of these "Apostolic" churches directly, their contact information is publicly available and easy to find with a simple internet search. I think the issues raised by this letter, including the attitude of the people who signed off on it, are long overdue for a public discussion.