Posted on 03/06/2008 8:14:57 PM PST by blue-duncan
CHAPTER X
THE EVIDENCE OF EARLY GENTILE WRITERS
So much, then, for the information we can gather from early Jewish writings; we turn now to the Gentiles.
The first Gentile writer who concerns us seems to be one called Thallus, who about AD 52 wrote a work tracing the history of Greece and its relations with Asia from the Trojan War to his own day. He has been identified with a Samaritan of that name, who is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6. 4) as being a freedman of the Emperor Tiberius. Now Julius Africanus, a Christian writer on chronology about AD 221, who knew the writings of Thallus, says when discussing the darkness which fell upon the land during the crucifixion of Christ: 'Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably, as it seems to me' (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).'
From this reference in Julius Africanus it has been inferred (a) that the gospel tradition, or at least the traditional story of the passion, was known in Rome in non-Christian circles towards the middle of the first century; and (b) that the enemies of Christianity tried to refute this Christian tradition by giving a naturalistic interpretation to the facts which it reported.'
But the writings of Thallus have disappeared; we know them only in fragments cited by later writers. Apart from him, no certain reference is made to Christianity in any extant non-Christian Gentile writing of the first century. There is, indeed, in the British Museum an interesting manuscript preserving the text of a letter written some time later than AD 73, but how much later we cannot be sure. This letter was sent by a Syrian named Mara BarSerapion to his son Serapion. Mara Bar-Serapion was in prison at the time, but he wrote to encourage his son in the pursuit of wisdom, and pointed out that those who persecuted wise men were overtaken by misfortune. He instances the deaths of Socrates, 'Pythagoras and Christ:
'What advantage did the Athenian, gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos, gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.'
This writer can scarcely have been a Christian, or he would have said that Christ lived on by being raised from the dead. He was more probably a Gentile philosopher, who led the way in what later became a commonplace-the placing of Christ on a comparable footing with the great sages of antiquity.
The reason for the paucity of references to Christianity in first century classical literature is not far to seek. From the standpoint of imperial Rome, Christianity in the first hundred years of its existence was an obscure, disreputable, vulgar oriental superstition, and if it found its way into official records at all these would most likely be the police records, which (in common with many other first century documents that we should like to see) have disappeared.
Justin and Tertullian believed that the record of the census of Luke ii. 1, including the registration of Joseph and Mary, would be found in the official archives of the reign of Augustus, and they referred their readers who wished to be reassured of the facts of our Lord's birth to these archives. This need not mean that they themselves had consulted the archives, but simply that they were quite sure that the records were preserved in them.
We should especially like to know if Pilate sent home to Rome any report of the trial and execution of Jesus, and, if so, what it contained. But it is not certain that he must have done so; and if he did, it has disappeared beyond trace.
Certainly some ancient writers believed that Pilate did send in such a report, but there is no evidence that any of them had any real knowledge of it. About AD 150 Justin Martyr, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the Emperor Antoninius Pius, referred him to Pilate's report, which Justin supposed must be preserved in the imperial archives. 'But the words, "They pierced my hands and my feet," ' he says, 'are a description of the nails that were fixed in His hands and His feet on the cross; and after He was crucified, those who crucified Him cast lots for His garments, and divided them among themselves; and that these things were so, you may learn from the "Acts" which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." Later he says: 'That He performed these miracles you may easily be satisfied from the "Acts" of Pontius Pilate."
Then Tertullian, the great jurist-theologian of Carthage, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the man authorities in the province of Africa about AD 197, says: 'Tiberius, in whose time the Christian name first made its appearance in the world, laid before the Senate tidings from Syria Palestina which had revealed to him the truth of the divinity there manifested, and supported the motion by his own vote to begin with. The Senate rejected it because it had not itself given its approval. Caesar held to his own opinion and threatened danger to the accusers of the Christians."
It would no doubt be pleasant if we could believe this story of Tertullian, which he manifestly believed to be true but a story so inherently improbable and inconsistent with what we know of Tiberius, related nearly 170 years after the event, does not commend itself to a historian's judgment.
When the influence of Christianity was increasing rapidly in the Empire, one of the last pagan emperors, Maximin II, two years before the Edict of Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, as Eusebius historian pointed out at the time;' among other things, their dating was quite wrong, as they placed the death of Jesus in the seventh year of Tiberius (AD 20), whereas the testimony of Josephus' is plain that Pilate not become procurator of Judaea till Tiberius' Twelfth year (not to mention the evidence of Luke iii. 1, according to which John the Baptist began to preach in fifteenth year of Tiberius). We do not know in detail these alleged 'Acts' contained, as they were naturally suppressed on Constantine's accession to power; but we may surmise that they had some affinity with Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian compilation popular in some Jewish circles in mediaeval time.'
Later in the fourth century another forged set of 'Acts of Pilate' appeared, this time from the Christian side, and as devoid of genuineness as Maximin's, to which they were perhaps intended as a counterblast. They are still extant, and consist of alleged memorials the trial, passion, and resurrection of Christ, recorded by Nicodemus and deposited with Pilate. (They are also own as the 'Gospel of Nicodemus'.) A translation of them is given in M. R. James' Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 94 ff., and they have a literary interest of their own, which does not concern us here.
The greatest Roman historian in the days of the Empire was Cornelius Tacitus, who was born between AD 52 and 54 and wrote the history of Rome under the emperors. About the age of sixty, when writing the story of the reign of Nero (AD 54-68), he described the eat fire which ravaged Rome in AD 64 and told how was widely rumoured that Nero had instigated the fire, in order to gain greater glory for himself by rebuilding the city. He goes on:
'Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty, a class of men, loathes for their vice', whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor; and the pernicious superstition was checked for a short time, only to break out afresh, not only in Judaea, the home of the plague, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."
This account does not strike one as having been derived from Christian sources nor yet from Jewish informants for the latter would not have referred to Jesus as Christus. For the pagan Tacitus, Christus was simply a proper name; for the Jews, as for the first Christians, it was not a name but a title, the Greek equivalent of the Semitic Messiah ('Anointed'). The Christians called Him Christus, because they believed He was the promised Messiah; the Jews, who did not believe so, would not have given Him that honoured title. Tacitus was in a position to have access to such official information as was available; he was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, who was governor of Britain in AD 80 to 84. If Pilate did send a report to Rome Tacitus was more likely to know of it than most writers, his language is too summary to make any such inference certain. One point is worth noting, however apart from Jewish and Christian writers, Tacitus is the one and only ancient author to mention Pilate. It may surely be accounted one of the ironies of history that the only mention Pilate receives from a Roman historian is in connection with the part he played in the execution Jesus.
The Great Fire of Rome is also mentioned by toning, who about AD 120 wrote the lives of the first twelve Caesars, from Julius Caesar onwards. In his Life 'Nero (xvi. 2) he says:
'Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.'
Another possible reference to Christianity occurs in 'Life of Claudius (xxv. 4), of whom he says:
'As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.'
It is not certain who this Chrestus was; but it is most likely that the strife among the Roman Jews at that was due to the recent introduction of Christianity into Jewish circles in Rome, and that Suetonius, finding record of Jewish quarreling over one Chrestus (a variant spelling of Christus in Gentile circles), inferred wrongly that this person was actually in Rome in the time of Claudius. However that may be, this statement another claim on our interest, for we read in Acts xviii 1f. that when Paul came to Corinth (probably AD 50) he found there a man named Aquila, with his wife Priscilla, lately come from Rome, for Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome. This couple played a distinguished part in early Christian history; they may well have been foundation members of the church in Rome.
A further point of contact between Suetonius' Life of Claudius and Acts is the statement in the former (xviii. 2) that Claudius' reign was marked by 'constant unfruitful seasons' (assiduoe sterilitates), which reminds us of the prophecy of Agabus in Acts xi. 28, 'that there should be great dearth throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of Claudius.'
In AD 112, C. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan, asking his advice on how to deal with the troublesome sect of Christians, who were embarrassingly numerous in his province. According to evidence he had secured by examining some of them under torture,
'they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath (sacramentum) not to commit any wicked deed, but to abstain from all, fraud, theft and adultery, never to break their word, or deny a trust when called upon to honour it; after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Whatever else may be thought of the evidence from early Jewish and Gentile writers, as summarized in this chapter and the preceding one, it does at least establish for those who refuse the witness of Christian writings, the historical character of Jesus Himself. Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.'
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.
END
This is the last chapter, so go get’em now that you are equipped!
Bttt.
Since when did a 'moon' full or otherwise have anything to do with 'Paschal'.... ?
“Since when did a ‘moon’ full or otherwise have anything to do with ‘Paschal’.... ?”
That’s how Israel determined the times for feasts.
God instructed Israel to begin the spring harvest season by waving an omer of barley grain (Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1966, page 355). This event symbolically typified the beginning of God’s harvest of human lives (John 4:35; James 5:7). The first to be harvested was Jesus, our Savior (John 3:16-17). Second, the Church is to be harvested, symbolized by the Feast of Firstfruits or Pentecost (1 Corinthians 15:23, 35-38).
The Sun & Moon Establish the Calendar
We see clearly that the two “great lights” which rule day and night are the sun and moon. David the great psalmist, expressed it even more clearly.
“To him that made great lights, ... The sun to rule by day; ... The moon and stars to rule by night; ...” (Ps. 136:7-9).
These “great lights” were created
(1)To divide day from night,
(2)For “signs,” and
(3)To establish seasons, days, and years.
Certainly the sun establishes the day, both the 12 hour day and the 24 hour day (Jn. 11:9; Gen. 1:23; Ps. 119:19-23). The moon establishes the month - beginning with the new moon. This is indicated by the fact that the same Hebrew word (Chodesh, Strong’s #2320) is in the King James Version translated both moon an month, depending on how it is used in the sentence (”new moon” 20 times, and “month” 220 times). But what determines the year?
As noted above, Scriptures tell us that sun and moon establish the year; not the sun only, but both of the great lights (Gen.1:14).
“This month [chodesh, moon] shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month [or moon] of the year to you” (Ex. 12:2).
This was stated, evidently, on the first day of the first month because reference is made to the coming dates in the first month; the 10th and the 14th. Yahweh confirmed this calendar as a law in Israel, as is indicated by scripture:
“Blow the trumpet at the new moon, at the full moon, on our feast day. It is a statute for Israel, an ordinance of the Elohim of Jacob. He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out over the land of Egypt, ...” (Ps. 81:3-5)
“Blow the horn for the new month, for the full moon on the day of our pilgrim feast. This is a law for Israel, an ordinance of the [Elohim] of Jacob laid as a solemn charge on Joseph when he came out of Egypt” (Ps. 81:3-5 NEB).
Each month starts with a new moon, and the major annual festivals are at the full moon.
The Full Moon
Can the first day of the month be established by observing the full moon, then counting back 14 days? No. There is too much variation in the motions of the moon.
“The necessary time for the full moon varies from 13.73 to 15.80 days after conjunction*.... Therefore knowing the precise time of the full moon does not [make it possible to] determine the day of the visible new crescent.” 14
The full moon is usually on the 14th or 15th day after conjunction of sun and moon. Since the new crescent is not seen until one, two, or (rarely) three days after conjunction, the full moon sometimes appears only 12 days after the crescent is first sighted. This is because the moon does not travel at the same speed from day to day and from month to month. Therefore, the first of the month cannot be established by noting the time of the full moon. Again, the Scriptural month begins, not with the conjunction, but with the visible new crescent.
Note Isaiah 1:1-14 ... 14 saying “Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul *hateth: they are a trouble unto ME; I am weary to bear them...
"Maximin II, two years before the Edict of Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren..."
No child left behind.
Cordially
equipped with what? conjecture? None of these little
stories have anything to do with whether or not the NT is inspired.
Reliable as what?' asked a discerning reviewer of the first edition of this little work, by way of a comment on the title. His point, I think, was that we should be concerned with the reliability of the New Testament as a witness to God's selfrevelation in Christ rather than with its reliability as a record of historical fact. True; but the two questions are closely related. For, since Christianity claims to be a historical revelation, it is not irrelevant to look at its foundation documents from the standpoint of historical criticism.
When the first edition of this book (my literary firstborn) appeared in 1943, I was a lecturer in classical studies, and had for long been accustomed to view he New Testament in its classical context. When I was invited from time to time to address audiences of sixth formers and university students on the trustworthiness of the New Testament in general and of the Gospel records in particular, my usual line was to show that the grounds for accepting the New Testament as trustworthy compared very favourably with the grounds on which classical students accepted the authenticity and credibility of many ancient documents. It was out of such talks that this book originally grew. It has (I am told) proved its usefulness to the readers for whom it was intended, not only in English speaking lands but in German and Spanish translations as well.
The historical and philological lines of approach have, of course, their limitations. They cannot establish the Christian claim that the New Testament completes the inspired record of divine revelation. But non-theological students (for whom the book was written) are, in my experience, more ready to countenance such a claim for a work which is historically reliable than for one which is not. And I think they are right. It is, indeed, difficult to restrict a discussion of the New Testament writings to the purely historical plane; theology insists on breaking in. But that is as it should be; history and theology are inextricably intertwined in the gospel of our salvation, which owes its eternal and universal validity to certain events which happened in Palestine when Tiberius ruled the Roman Empire.
I welcome the opportunity to give the book a thorough revision (not thorough enough, some of my friends may think); and in sending it forth afresh I continue to dedicate it to those university and college students throughout the world who, singly or in groups, maintain among their colleagues the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ our Lord.
F. F. B. April 1959.
So ---
Just how invicibly ignorant, do you wish to be?
Well son of a gun, if they believed the wine to be the blood of Christ and the bread the body of Christ a good torturer would have gotten that out of them.
Just how invicibly ignorant, do you wish to be?
Although I'd jump at the chance to claim more ignorance, the opportunity doesn't present itself in what this Bruce character is writing.
Does it have to all be spelled out to you, step-by-step? Why? so you can argue ad infinitum, I'd guess.
Try reading the series at the link, perhaps? He offers well supported, scholarly reasonings for his views. The "conjecture", as you put it, is more your own, than his! Maybe you should drop your objections long enough to allow what others are saying, to sink in, before rejecting it all, with a simple wave of your own hand.
"Willfully"? You've got that right. If the issues arent convincing Its my will to remain unconvinced.
Does it have to all be spelled out to you, step-by-step?
No, but just a tad bit of evidence would help.
Why? so you can argue ad infinitum, I'd guess.
I'm sure I'll become exasperated and stop eventually.
Try reading the series at the link, perhaps?
I've followed these postings for the past few weeks.
He offers well supported, scholarly reasonings for his views.
I'm glad you think so.
The "conjecture", as you put it, is more your own, than his!
Thanx for your opinion.
Maybe you should drop your objections long enough to allow what others are saying, to sink in, before rejecting it all, with a simple wave of your own hand.
I dropped my objections for 30 years before picking them back up. Hardy a simple wave of hand. Perhaps you shouldn't assume so much before opening mouth (er..typing).
Without some form of actual rebuttal on your own part, towards
the works in question, than what you are engaging in IS simply hand-waving, regardless of how long you have enjoyed remaining so woefully stepped in your own ignorance.
Just as soon as the "works in question" graduate beyond conjecture I'll discontinue the hand-waving. In the meantime have fun pretending this is some sort of scholarly endeavor.
“In the meantime have fun pretending this is some sort of scholarly endeavor.”
I assume from your remarks you are not familiar with F.F. Bruce. Here is a short biographical sketch and some of his works.
“He was born in Elgin, Moray in Scotland and was educated at the University of Aberdeen, Cambridge University and the University of Vienna. After teaching Greek for several years first at the University of Edinburgh and then at the University of Leeds he became head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947. In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote some thirty-three books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly. He retired from teaching in 1978.
Bruce was a distinguished scholar on the life and ministry of Paul the Apostle, and wrote several studies the best known of which is Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. He also wrote commentaries on several biblical books including Acts of the Apostles, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Bruce was a dedicated member of the Open Plymouth Brethren. However he did not affirm the dispensationalism and pretribulationism usually associated with that movement.
Most of his works were scholarly, but he also penned several mainstream works on the Bible that were quite popular. He viewed the New Testament as historically reliable and that the truth claims of Christianity hinged on its being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, and this lack of precision could lead to considerable confusion. However, he believed that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.
He was honoured with two scholarly works by his colleagues and former students, one to mark his sixtieth and the other to mark his seventieth birthday. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, and served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study. He is one of a handful of scholars thus recognised by his peers in both fields.
Books in Honour of Bruce
W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin (eds). Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday. Exeter: Paternoster/Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1970. ISBN 0-85364-098-X
D.A. Hagner & M.J.Harris (eds). Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce. Exeter: Paternoster/Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1980. ISBN 0-8028-3531-7 “
The Epistle to the Hebrews
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 1990 - 448 pages
The Book of the Acts
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 1988 - 564 pages
The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 1984
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 2003
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - 1986
The Message of the New Testament
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 1973
The Gospel of John
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 1994
The Origin of the Bible
by Philip Wesley Comfort, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, J. I. Packer, Carl F H Henry - Religion - 2003 - 325 pages
History of the Bible in English
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce - Religion - 2002 - 288 pages
Holy Book and Holy Tradition: International Colloquium Held in the Faculty ...
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Ernest Gordon Rupp - Religion - 1968 - 244 pages
Still no reasonable rebuttals offered either, I see...just you claiming "conjecture" "conjecture". Go ahead, hide behind that smokescreen if you like. You may even be able to keep fooling yourself with it too. Meanwhile, those who are able to read and comprehend, will continue on.
Maybe you SHOULD go to the link offered, and read it all again. It might make more sense, to take it all up within context?
If you could do such, then offer something of actual weight, then maybe someone would consider your own opinions as worthy. So far, your argument is empty.
With all your cheerleading for somebody elses research I'm wondering if you're capable of having a thought.
Still no reasonable rebuttals offered either, I see...just you claiming "conjecture" "conjecture". Go ahead, hide behind that smokescreen if you like.
Still no reasonable arguments for the reliability of your writings? Guess I'll have to continue to conclude conjecture. I know you don't like that word but nobody said life would be easy.
You may even be able to keep fooling yourself with it too. Meanwhile, those who are able to read and comprehend, will continue on.
Ah the FR reading comprension card. Ok. Let me when you start comprehending something.
Maybe you SHOULD go to the link offered, and read it all again. It might make more sense, to take it all up within context?
Lol. If your NT had any context you wouldn't have multiple denominations.
If you could do such, then offer something of actual weight, then maybe someone would consider your own opinions as worthy. So far, your argument is empty.
I have no great need need for you to consider anything I have to offer as worthy. If you have anything further to offer other than cheerleading, let me know.
ah. the knowledge that “puffeth up”. doesn’t that go against your “reliable” writings?
“ah. the knowledge that “puffeth up”. doesn’t that go against your “reliable” writings?”
No, the gifts of knowledge and wisdom are not “knowledge that “puffeth up”” but the tools to “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses (historical witnesses), the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.