The Triumph of Titus by Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Oil on canvas, 1885

What’s Happening, April, 2010

I haven’t made many posts lately, for I am in the process of rewriting the How to Live Forever manuscript in a fashion that removes copyrighted materials. I have already identified each of the citations in question; and when they have been replaced, either by public domain translations or through having the passage in question re-translated specifically for this project, I intend to self-publish and advertise online. I would like to have this completed by end of summer, publishing the book by year’s end.

In the meantime, here is an interesting passage implying Roman hostility towards Christianity under the Flavian Emperors. Sulpicius Severus relates that Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in order to eliminate both the Jewish and Christian religions:

Titus is said, after calling a council, to have first deliberated whether he should destroy the temple, a structure of such extraordinary work. For it seemed good to some that a sacred edifice, distinguished above all human achievements, ought not to be destroyed, inasmuch as, if preserved, it would furnish an evidence of Roman moderation, but, if destroyed, would serve for a perpetual proof of Roman cruelty. But on the opposite side, others and Titus himself thought that the temple ought specially to be overthrown, in order that the religion of the Jews and of the Christians might more thoroughly be subverted; for that these religions, although contrary to each other, had nevertheless proceeded from the same authors; that the Christians had sprung up from among the Jews; and that, if the root were extirpated, the offshoot would speedily perish.

- Chronica II.30.6. (translated by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D.) [c. 401 AD]

Severus drew heavily from non-Christian historians (Chron. I.1.4), including Josephus and Tacitus (comp. Chron. II.28.2 to Annals xv.37.). Since Josephus’ account portrayed Titus as sympathetic to Judaism and opposed to the destruction of the Jewish Temple (Bell. Iud. vi.4.3), a case has been made that Severus’ divergence indicates that he was quoting a passage from the lost books of Tacitus’ Histories. My copy of the Loeb edition of Tacitus (ed. C.H. Moore, vol. III, pp. 220-221) includes both Chron. II.30.3 and II.30.6 as fragments of  Tacitus’ Histories, Book V with no disclaimer, treating the matter as if settled. Whether this is actually the case, it does seem unlikely that Severus would contradict Josephus (whose account he appeared to be following, comp. II.30.5 to Bell. Iud. vi.9.3) on this point unless he had an alternative source. As an interesting aside, Titus might be expected to know more of the origins of Christianity than the average Roman through his mistress Berenice, who had personally heard the Christian message from the apostle Paul in the late 50’s AD (Acts 25:13 – 26:32). For complete discussion on the merits of Tacitean authorship for this passage, see H. W. Montefiore, ‘Sulpicius Severus and Titus’ Council of War’, Historia 11 (1962), pp. 156ff.

John records a third resurrection which was performed by Jesus, shortly before the crucifixion. This is the story of Lazarus, a close friend of Jesus’ from Bethany. Unlike the widow’s son at Nain or Jairus’ daughter, Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days prior to Jesus’ arrival. Commanding the removal of a stone which had blocked the entrance of Lazarus’ tomb for over half of the Jewish week of mourning was the most inexplicable of actions. The only possible justification for such a request would have been the resurrection of the occupant. This account demonstrates more clearly than any other the foreknowledge; the prophetic insight that Christ held concerning these miracles.

Vincent Van Gogh: La Résurrection de Lazare (d’après Rembrandt)

Before we examine the passage from John’s Gospel, a little background is in order. Some have questioned why John alone would chronicle this most remarkable of pre-crucifixion revivifications. One might reason that such an amazing incident should have been a keynote feature in the Synoptic Gospels as well. The answer to this seeming paradox, once again, depends on when each account was written. All four Gospel accounts record that Jesus’ life had been threatened by the Jewish authorities prior to the events at Lazarus’ tomb[1]. In Chapter IV we examined the reasons for this conflict between Christ and the Jewish rulers. John’s account preserves considerable detail of how this underlying premise affected the decisions and actions of the participants.

John tells us that the resurrection of Lazarus caused the chief priests and Pharisees to call for a meeting of the Sanhedrin[2]. This notable miracle had been performed at Bethany, a village only two miles east of Jerusalem. (The resurrections of the widow’s son at Nain and Jairus’ daughter were both in Galilee.) Because Lazarus had been entombed for four days, this resurrection could not be explained away as a case of misdiagnosis of death. The impact of Lazarus’ resurrection upon the Judean populace reinforced the ruling Jews commitment to kill Jesus. But more important to our understanding is John’s statement that the Jews resolved to kill Lazarus as well:

¹Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. ²Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. ³Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

⁴But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, ⁵“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” ⁶He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

⁷“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. ⁸You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

⁹Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ¹⁰So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, ¹¹for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.

-The Gospel of John, 12:1-11

This is the only time, other than the resurrection account, that Lazarus of Bethany is mentioned in the New Testament. Interestingly, Matthew and Mark do record the events of this dinner, which they place at the house of one Simon the leper[3]. Matthew refers to very expensive perfume, while Mark mentions very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. Matthew and Mark agree that the ointment was contained within an alabaster jar. Matthew and Mark narrate that the perfume was used to anoint Jesus’ head, while John specifically states she poured the perfume on Jesus’ feet. Whether this means she anointed both Jesus’ head and feet, or that she anointed Jesus’ head and it dripped onto his feet, John was particularly moved by the picture of Mary wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair. You are capable of determining for yourself whether this difference is reconcilable.

But significantly, Matthew and Mark never refer in their accounts to Mary, Martha, or Lazarus by name. If the Jewish rulers had determined that Lazarus must die along with Jesus, who had been crucified prior to the creation of any Gospel narrative, then any responsible author of these events had to consider that a man’s life was at stake. This would be a necessary precondition until Lazarus either passed away, or until the destruction of Jerusalem which removed the Jewish leadership from power. Was Lazarus in hiding? Did an uneasy truce exist between Lazarus and the authorities as long as he maintained a low profile? These things are impossible to know today. When the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued the fatwa calling for Salmon Rushdie’s death in 1989, he caused the author of The Satanic Verses to spend many years in hiding. Even today, thirty years later, I am reluctant to mention his example, although I understand that the edict has expired.

Based upon the testimony of the early church we can date the Synoptic Gospels from the late 40’s to the mid 60’s AD. Luke’s compilation of the Acts of the Apostles ends abruptly after two years of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment – so 63 AD or slightly earlier. Luke’s Gospel was written before the Acts[4], probably during Paul’s two year imprisonment in Caesarea, (around 60 AD.) But a precise date is difficult to ascertain. All the testimony that we have examined agrees that Mark wrote his Gospel before Luke’s Gospel. And all witnesses agree that Matthew was written first. Since the Synoptic Gospels were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and John wrote his Gospel more than twenty years afterward, it makes sense that John alone would be released to disclose the details of Lazarus’ resurrection. This exercise reemphasizes the need to consider these accounts at face-value, from the perspective of the author and contemporaneous audience. Giving much deserved credit to the statements of the martyrs allows these perceived inconsistencies to melt away. And how much more worthy is it than to be forever calling falsehood the dying testaments of the slain.

And now we proceed with John’s record of the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany:

¹Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. ²This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. ³So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”

⁴When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” ⁵Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. ⁶Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

⁷Then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea.”

⁸“But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?”

⁹Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. ¹⁰It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.”

¹¹After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

¹²His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” ¹³Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

¹⁴So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, ¹⁵and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

¹⁶Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

-The Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verses 1-16, (NIV Translation)

John begins by identifying Lazarus and his family. The episode in which Mary anoints Jesus with perfume (v. 2) has not happened yet. John provides this information to distinguish Mary from the other Mary’s in John’s Gospel[a]. The essence of this passage is that Jesus waits several days after hearing of Lazarus’ illness before traveling to Judea. Once again, Jesus refers to death as having fallen asleep. The disciples are reluctant to return to Judea, where Jesus is now a wanted man. Thomas Didymus, who John alone brings to life as a character, exhorts the other disciples to travel to Judea to share Jesus’ death. Best remembered for his doubts concerning Jesus’ resurrection, this willingness to die for the Master indicates that Thomas was not devoid of faith. Several days later, Jesus and his disciples arrive in Bethany:

¹⁷On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. ¹⁸Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, ¹⁹and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. ²⁰When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.

²¹“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. ²²But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”

²³Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

²⁴Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

²⁵Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; ²⁶and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

²⁷“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”

²⁸And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” ²⁹When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. ³⁰Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. ³¹When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there.

³²When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

³³When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. ³⁴“Where have you laid him?” he asked.
“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

³⁵Jesus wept.

³⁶Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

³⁷But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

-The Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verses 17-37, (NIV Translation)

Jesus arrived in Bethany four days after Lazarus burial. This was the middle of the seven days of intense mourning proscribed by Jewish law; a time when all of the Jewish community, including representatives of the city council, would visit and console the bereaved family[5]. Lazarus’ family received news of Jesus’ arrival, and Martha went to speak with him. But Jesus had not yet entered the village, or made his arrival public knowledge. Remember that the Jewish leadership was still trying to apprehend Jesus. Martha called Mary aside, and privately told her that Jesus had asked for her. Some translations say that Martha secretly told her, or that Martha whispered this information to Mary. However that may be, the mourners were unaware of Mary’s destination when followed her. Once they had assembled in his presence, Jesus allowed the mourners to show him the grave:

³⁸ Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. ³⁹ “Take away the stone,” he said.
“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.”

⁴⁰ Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

⁴¹ So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. ⁴² I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

⁴³ When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” ⁴⁴ The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

-The Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verses 38-44, (NIV Translation)

Consider for a moment the implications of removing the stone from the tomb. What plane was Jesus operating on, that he could so petition the bereaved? Picture yourself making the same request to a dear friend at his close family member’s funeral. Two-thousand years after the fact, John’s remembrance still speaks to our hearts, allowing us to see what he saw and feel what he felt. Who present would not be moved? And small wonder the Pharisees’ allegation that Lazarus’ very existence drew converts to Christ.

When Lazarus, the dead man, came out, he was bound hand and foot with the linen strips indicative of Jewish preparation of a corpse[6]. The mourners had to undo the burial preparation by unwrapping the corpse, a procedure not addressed by Jewish tradition. Was Mary’s concern over the odor from the tomb valid? Did the reek of decay still cling to Lazarus after he was restored to life? Our testimony only tells us that all were convinced, and many came to Christ as a consequence.

John’s account of Lazarus easily meets our three criteria. John, Jesus’ beloved disciple, was the eyewitness. No one on the planet expressed doubt of Johannine authorship for this Gospel during the first fifteen–hundred years after it was published. We not only know who wrote it, but we know where, when, and why. It makes no sense that this disciple, who saw his own brother beheaded by Agrippa I and his closest friends martyred for sixty years, would be anything other than true to his message. And John still remembers a lot of inside information concerning the motivations for people’s behavior to be mistaken about something as graphic as Lazarus walking from the tomb.

[2] John 11:45-57

[3] Matthew 26:6-16; Mark 14:3-11

[4] Acts 1:1-2

[5] Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 782-783, Van Gorum, 1974

[6] Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 775-776, Van Gorum, 1974

In 67 AD, during the Jewish revolt against Rome, Roman legions under Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian) conquered the Galilean city of Jotapata, the center of resistance for the Jewish armies in Galilee. Taken alive was Joseph ben Matthias, the commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee, a young man of aristocratic lineage and personal friend of Poppea, wife of the reigning Emperor Nero. It was unusual to capture such a leader. Most

Giulio Romano, The Triumph of Titus and Vespasian

Jewish commanders would suicide rather than face the pain and humiliation which Romans were wont to mete out to rebels. In consequence, Vespasian prepared to send this prestigious prisoner to Nero, an Emperor renowned for his merciless pursuit of self-interest[a].

Joseph was in something of a cleft stick. Whether he went to Nero or stayed with the legions, his outlook was torture and execution. Could he have appealed to Poppea for succor? Could he have made ‘a deal’ with the legions? At best he would be a turncoat, traitor to his people and his cause, never to be trusted by either side.

Joseph tells us in his own writings how these events transpired:

However, Vespasian gave strict orders that he should be kept with great caution, as though he would in a very little time send him to Nero.

When Josephus heard him give those orders, he said that he had somewhat in his mind that he would willingly say to himself alone. When therefore they were all ordered to withdraw, excepting Titus and two of their friends, he said, “Thou, O Vespasian, thinkest no more than that thou hast taken Josephus himself captive; but I come to thee as a messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by God to thee, I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case? and how it becomes generals to die. Dost thou send me to Nero? For why? Are Nero’s successors till they come to thee still alive? Thou, O Vespasian, art Caesar and emperor, thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster, and keep me for thyself, for thou, O Caesar, are not only lord over me, but over the land and the sea, and all mankind; and certainly I deserve to be kept in closer custody than I now am in, in order to be punished, if I rashly affirm any thing of God.” When he had said this, Vespasian at present did not believe him, but supposed that Josephus said this as a cunning trick, in order to his own preservation; but in a little time he was convinced, and believed what he said to be true, God himself erecting his expectations, so as to think of obtaining the empire, and by other signs fore-showing his advancement. He also found Josephus to have spoken truth on other occasions; for one of those friends that were present at that secret conference said to Josephus, “I cannot but wonder how thou couldst not foretell to the people of Jotapata that they should be taken, nor couldst foretell this captivity which hath happened to thyself, unless what thou now sayest be a vain thing, in order to avoid the rage that is risen against thyself.” To which Josephus replied, “I did foretell to the people of Jotapata that they would be taken on the forty-seventh day, and that I should be caught alive by the Romans.” Now when Vespasian had inquired of the captives privately about these predictions, he found them to be true, and then he began to believe those that concerned himself. Yet did he not set Josephus at liberty from his hands, but bestowed on him suits of clothes, and other precious gifts; he treated him also in a very obliging manner, and continued so to do, Titus still joining his interest in the honors that were done him. – Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter viii, § 398 – 408

So Joseph claimed to have allowed himself to be captured because he was sent to Vespasian with a message from God, a prophecy of things to come. Was this the truth, or some fable concocted by Joseph for the purpose of self-preservation? That Vespasian came to believe in Joseph as a prophet is evident:

(1.) From the chain cutting ceremony described in B.J. IV.10.7 (622-629). Here, upon ascension to Imperial glory as foretold by Joseph, Vespasian demonstrates that Joseph was unjustly imprisoned by cutting his chains to pieces, rather than just releasing him. Wars of the Jews was published during the reign of Vespasian around 75 AD. Josephus could not have published this anecdote concerning the Emperor’s clemency and friendship without the Emperor’s tacit approval. With the exception of a few men granted mercy at Joseph’s behest, the Romans appear to have executed other Jews complicate in the revolt.

(2.) From Vespasian’s subsequent treatment of Joseph. Vespasian not only freed Joseph, but he rewarded him with Roman citizenship, gave him an apartment in his own house, a wife, an imperial pension, grants of land, and lifelong friendship (Vita 76 (423-430)). Joseph ben Matthias adopted his benefactor’s name, as was Roman custom, and is known to us through his many extant writings as Flavius Josephus.

Vespasian might have preserved the life of a traitor in order to keep a promise; but no traitor would be invited into the Emperor’s own house and shown lifelong favour as a trusted friend. An Emperor needs not surround himself with those whom he despises to achieve his ends. By his actions, Vespasian demonstrates that he held Joseph in high esteem, and that he was in accord with Joseph’s claims to be a prophet. Why else would he have thus accepted a known rebel?

(3.) Vespasian’s sons, Titus and Domitian, each continued to show Josephus favour and friendship during their Emperorships (Vita 76 (422-430)). Once again, Josephus’ publication of these claims during the rein of Domitian (93 AD) went unchallenged by an Emperor known for intolerance.

(4.) Roman historians writing subsequent to Flavian rule accepted the prophecy of Josephus as an established fact. See Suetonius, Vespasian V.vi & Dio, Rom. Hist. LXVI.i. This view, perpetuated by disinterested Romans, is further corroboration of Josephus’ written claims of having received Imperial favour. Suetonius was born around the time of Vespasian’s ascension, and was therefore contemporary to Josephus’ writing career.

According to Josephus’ account, he was directed by God to not kill himself, even though any good Jewish commander was so obligated by law and duty. Rather, he was directed to serve as the messenger of God to Vespasian. And the message that he brought, during the reign of Nero, was that Vespasian was to be Caesar, and that his son Titus would assume the throne after him.

Since Vespasian and Titus were both present during the prophecy as presented above, it is safe to assume that the prediction was made shortly after the fall of Jotapata in 67 AD, as represented by Josephus. Otherwise one or both of these august rulers would have failed to endorse Josephus’ account. A prophecy soon after capture explains why Josephus was not sent to Nero as originally planned; the Flavian commanders needed time to contemplate the credentials of the prophet. The change in plans had to have occurred early, before Nero had been informed of the possibility of a prisoner. Even an imagined insult to this dread sovereign would have been fraught with dire consequences.

So Josephus appears to have made the prediction in 67 AD; but what are the odds that Josephus could have shrewdly guessed that Vespasian was destined for the purple? After all, the event came to fruition in 69 AD, only a few years after the prediction?

(1.) After Nero’s overthrow and assisted suicide in 68 AD, Rome went through a period of uncertainty and upheaval commonly referred to as, ‘the year of the four Caesars’. The first of these princeps was Servius Sulpicius Galba, who had been governor of Hispania. Vespasian immediately dispatched his son Titus to Rome to pay homage to the new Emperor (Tacitus, Histories II.i). So it seems that Vespasian did not see himself as an obvious contender even after the death of Nero.

(2.) Suetonius tells us that the very reason Nero chose Vespasian for the Judaean campaign was his relative obscurity. Nero needed a General who could win auspicious victories without becoming a threat to the throne. See Suetonius, Vespasian IV.v.

(3.) The year of the four Caesars saw in rapid succession the ascension to Imperial glory of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and then Vespasian. Nero was Caesar when Josephus made the prediction. What are the odds of picking a final victor in so diverse a field? Think of any modern state where power has changed hands so many times in so short a time, and consider whether you could have made the call.

(4.) Josephus not only predicted that Vespasian would become Caesar, but he predicted that Titus would follow. Vespasian was the tenth Emperor of Rome, if you start with Julius Caesar. For over a hundred years, these men had ruled the Roman Empire. And yet, Vespasian was the first Caesar to ever place his son on the throne! For us, this is a piece of historic trivia. But to those in the Roman world it was an intrinsic part of their existence. Who would predict, during these tumultuous times, that Vespasian would not only rise from obscurity to the princeps, but that he would be the first to secure the position for his son?

(5.) Finally, we know that Joseph was on close, personal terms with the Empress, Poppea. If he was a scoundrel, bent on deception, does it not seem more likely that he would have wanted to go to Rome where he had such an advocate? In a previous matter involving accusations against certain Jewish priests, Poppea had intervened with the Emperor on Josephus’ behalf (Vita 3 (16)); would she not do so again? Could he not say that he had agreed to lead Jewish armies under duress; and that he had made peace with Rome at the earliest opportunity? I submit that an Imperial favourite would play these cards, if opportunism was his motive.

In summary, Joseph predicted Vespasian’s ascension two years before the fact, and Titus’ twelve years before the fact. Vespasian and his two sons clearly believed that Joseph had delivered this message prophetically, and showed him considerable honour accordingly. The details of Joseph’s predictions were improbable at best, and were certainly not the guesses of a political opportunist. Joseph ‘made his bed’ with this obscure Roman Flavian gens, previously unknown to him, when he was already a court favourite. The most logical explanation for these events is that Josephus experienced a supernatural revelation of otherwise unknowable future occurrence, an experience which Josephus believed to be prophecy emanating from God.

Given the foregoing, I submit for your consideration the notion that we have uncovered scientific evidence of actual prophecy; and that the failure to commonly recognize this phenomenon may be more due to an a priori dismissal of the evidence based upon preconceived biases (i.e. worldview), than to weakness of data. I further submit that such evidence for the existence of prophecy is de facto evidence for the existence of God, although I will leave expansion of this theme for a later essay.

For nearly two-hundred years, since Eichhorn coined the term, higher critical methods have been the accepted means for determination of the authenticity of ancient documents. These techniques as performed by academia today constitute the ONLY procedures for evaluating such documents which are based upon scientific principles. Notwithstanding the pedigree of the work, or ancient testimony to the contrary, the true nature of all ancient literature may be determined ONLY through adherence to this modern approach. So we are told.

But is the higher criticism, as currently practiced, truly the unbiased application of the scientific method to the field of historical literature?  Based upon the examples of higher critical analyses that I have studied, and I have by no means read them all, I have observed a curious systematic acceptance of the sophistic notion that science has somehow disproven the supernatural – that phenomena either unexamined or unproven by modern science have somehow been disproved by the lack of formal treatment. This premise, coupled with the modern prejudice that the ancients were a rather naïve and superstitious lot, incapable of discriminating truth from fable and certainly incapable of teaching anything to a modern man of science, has been invoked to discredit an entire corpus of literature – specifically that literature which claims to be a record of the intervention of the Divine in the affairs of men. “Oh, give me a break,” some might say, “all that buildup to defend a dying faith against the encroachment of science? When will you religious nuts stop being threatened by progress?”

But I submit for your consideration the defense that science does not hold a monopoly on truth. Indeed, the long and chequered annals of science include many embarrassing incidents of entrenched hostility towards new theories by adherents of previous doctrines; and conversely, the acceptance of rather dubious conclusions based upon the prestige of their proponents[a]. Even well supported theories come and go with the passage of time. The Newtonian mechanics that you learned in school were already known to be incomplete, having been augmented by Einstein’s Relativity, long before you were taught Newton.

So to say that something is the ‘accepted’ scientific theory of the day is really no endorsement at all. True science can be built only upon hard data by sound logical arguments. Many things science has yet to measure, so the requisite evidence needed for development of a theory has not even been gathered. As a physicist, one of the ‘hard’ scientists, I am well aware that each of my working theories rests upon data and underlying assumptions. This being said, I may only apply a theory to a problem INSOFAR as that problem does not violate one of the theory’s underlying premises.

In contrast, I have noticed a propensity among ‘soft’ scientists engaged in studies of higher criticism to believe that a consensus of authoritative opinion somehow renders a belief scientific. And that, once being scientific, alternative theories must bow to the established ‘science’. A scientist by vocation, this approach is particularly objectionable to me. Who ever made a scientific Discovery by accepting the consensus? Every branch of ‘hard’ science seeks out evidence of inexplicable phenomena, for therein lies the hope of Discovery – the evidence for a new theory! ONLY the ‘higher criticism’ represses the evidence of something new; in favor of their ‘established’ beliefs. When you think of it like that, maybe ‘higher criticism’ is a religion, rather than a science?

This sort of reasoning appears to pervade all of the schools of higher criticism. As an example, consider the case of the Gospel of Luke, an integral book within the canon of Christian literature. Early testimony uniformly attributed its authorship to the Greek physician Luke, a companion of that Apostle Paul who wrote much of the New Testament[1]. Part of a two volume set which includes the Acts of the Apostles; Luke’s Gospel provides a history of the life and earthly ministry of Christ which the author claims to have been based upon the most diligent and carefully scrutinized testimony of actual eyewitnesses, probably including Jesus’ disciples and family[2]. As the first book of the set, Luke was written prior to the Acts of the Apostles, which appears from strong internal evidence to have been written during Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, circa 62-63 AD[3]. Luke’s Gospel then, was most likely written during Paul’s two year imprisonment at Caesarea Maritime, around 58-60 AD. This would have been Luke’s best opportunity to interview the Judean witnesses he claimed to have utilized, and is consistent with period testimony, literature, and history.

But proponents of higher criticism tell us that such was not the case. Luke was written later – much later indeed – than traditionally supposed. They base this insight upon ‘historical anachronisms’, inconsistencies between references contained within the text of Luke’s gospel and known historical events. Illustrative of such disagreement is the prophecy given by Jesus as he went to be crucified. According to Luke, Jesus of Nazareth stopped during the procession for long enough to tell a crowd of wailing women to weep not for Him, but rather to lament the calamities that were to befall Jerusalem and her citizens. During this brief exchange, Jesus outlines in some graphic detail the destruction of Jerusalem as accomplished by Titus in AD 70. “Aha!” say the higher critics, “Luke knew of the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore Luke must have been written AFTER 70 AD.” “But,” you protest, “Surely the text indicates that Jesus was FORETELLING a subsequent destruction – a catastrophe which had not yet occurred?” “Absurd,” they cry with smug vehemence, “You can not expect a scientist to believe in prophecy!” And therein lies the rub. Prophecy is not scientific. Or so they say.

A true scientist would, of course, evaluate the theory of prophecy by examining the potential value of this and other accounts as evidence. Fortunately, the Christians of Jerusalem in Luke’s time did believe this was a prophetic utterance. Forewarned by Jesus’ words, they fled Jerusalem three years before the siege of Titus; accepting safe asylum under Agrippa II in the town of Pella in the Decapolis[4].

Yet the underlying premise that claims of prophecy discredit a written account has been uniformly applied to the entire corpus of Judeo-Christian Holy Writ with similar results. Thus the Isaiah who lived in the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah, could not be the same Isaiah who knew of (prophesied) the Babylonian conquest a hundred years later. And that second Isaiah is excluded from identification with the Isaiah who knew of (prophesied) the return of the captives to Jerusalem in 537 BC – even to the naming of the Persian prince who gave the edict, Cyrus. According to higher critical analysis, the book attributed to the prophet Isaiah since before the inception of the Greek Septuagint (3^rd century BC) must actually have been a compilation of different works by different authors, written over a period of several hundred years. Consequently new, ‘scientific’ nomenclature has been developed, and the book known as Isaiah within the Hebrew and Christian canons, the book always written on a single scroll in ancient times[b] is now broken into fragments and designated I Isaiah, II Isaiah, III Isaiah, and sometimes IV Isaiah by our dedicated scholars. All based upon this secular bias which precludes any supernatural event a priori as scientifically impossible, and seeks always an explanation for the miraculous in terms of theories currently endorsed by a plurality of modern scientists.

Using these analytical criteria, higher critical methods will assign a date of composition later than the last historical event foretold for every work which records a prophecy. Unfulfilled prophecies are treated as religious ‘wishful thinking’ and ignored for determination of chronology. Likewise any record of miraculous[c] or supernatural events other than prophecy must be relegated to the status of legend or myth. In these cases the written work must be assigned to a time after the majority of witnesses are dead and gone, when it is possible to embellish or interpolate the natural and easily explicable event with claims of the Divine power, [sic].

Now this method of analysis is absolutely sound as long as one premise remains true:

Underlying Premise for Higher Criticism:

Nothing can exist other than the natural world as understood by man.

Since the higher criticism requires that all ancient claims must be reinterpreted within the limits of accepted modern scientific theory, reality will only coincide with higher critical solutions when ancient descriptions are explicable by principles understood by the interpreter. If there is a God, or angels, or devils or any supernatural, spiritual, or otherwise undiscovered power displayed in the universe, and the analyst is unwilling to entertain the possibility of forces beyond his ken, then the method breaks down due to dependence on a false premise. As we all know, a deductive argument which contains one hundred true statements and one false premise is proves nothing – the whole argument is rendered invalid.

An interesting corollary to this underlying requirement is the practical reality that interpretations are not limited by current, state-of-the-art scientific theory; but rather by the interpreter’s level of understanding for these theories. Thus, an ancient account which somehow recorded a relativistic observation, although this is an unlikely example, would be deemed myth, legend, interpolation, etc, unless the historian/textual critic was well versed in the Theory of Relativity, and consequently able to explain the phenomena in this manner.

Illustrative of this bias is the following excerpt from Pliny the elder:

CHAP. 31. (31.)–MANY SUNS.

And again, many suns have been seen at the same time; not above or below the real sun, but in an oblique direction, never near nor opposite to the earth, nor in the night, but either in the east or in the west. They are said to have been seen once at noon in the Bosphorus[d], and to have continued from morning until sunset. Our ancestors have frequently seen three suns at the same time, as was the case in the consulship of Sp. Postumius and L. Mucius, of L. Marcius and M. Portius, that of M. Antony and Dolabella, and that of M. Lepidus and L. Plancus. And we have ourselves seen one during the reign of the late Emperor Claudius, when he was consul along with Corn. Orfitus. We have no account transmitted to us of more than three having been seen at the same time. – Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 – 79 AD), The Natural History[e], Book II

Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder) was a military commander, statesman, friend of the Flavian Emperors, and one of the most well read men of his time. Pliny completed the Natural History, a scientific encyclopedia, in 37 Books around 77 AD. Two years later (August 24, 79 AD), as commander of the Roman fleet based at Misenum, he died of asphyxiation while conducting rescue operations for those threatened by the eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii.

By the standards of first century Rome, Pliny was a well-educated man. And yet we see the mindless drivel that he was willing to accept, as a man of science. Now how many modern observers are willing to believe in ‘many suns’ in the sky at the same time? Obviously Pliny’s reports of three suns in the sky at the same time must be disputed, n’est-ce pas? Consider carefully the cupidity of this ancient scientist, before you hit the -read more- button. Try to understand before you move onward the reasons for his error.

Please follow the following link to the Wikipedia article on Sun Dogs:

Wikipedia – Sun Dogs

Oops! Not quite cricket, I know. But necessary for us to evaluate our own biases.

So it turns out that the problem was ours, not the esteemed Pliny’s. And this is the same presumption that we encounter whenever someone confuses their personal beliefs concerning the supernatural with scientific treatment of the supernatural.  While it may not be ‘cool’ in scientific circles to acknowledge the possibility of God, our acceptance is not requisite for His existence. True science has no preconceived opinion concerning the reality of God. True science must rather recognize evidence of God’s intervention in the affairs of man in the form of testimony by witnesses; but how to evaluate that testimony when the phenomena cannot, by their nature, be repeated in a laboratory?

This concept should really be developed as a new form of textual criticism – an approach that evaluates the reliability of historic documents based upon contemporaneous attestation and examination of motives for the authors and witnesses; and then uses the reliable accounts as a means to examine the intervention of the Divine in the affairs of men. This approach would provide the scientific avenue for evaluating the nature of God, a field of study which has been for too long considered to be outside the scope of science. Rather than throwing out all accounts which claim to have experienced the supernatural, science would discover the infinite based upon the mark left by God upon the pages of history. Into this category of science would fall How to Live Forever.

[b] Numerous examples of this are found in the Qumran caves.

[c] For our purposes, any occurrence inexplicable by currently accepted scientific theories.

[d] The Istanbul Strait – the strait which separates the European from the Asian portions of modern Turkey.

[e] The Natural History. Pliny the Elder. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. London. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1855.

[2] Gospel of Luke 1:1-4

[3] F.F.Bruce, The Acts of The Apostles, Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp 1-10

[4] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, v, 2-3; Epiphanius, Panarion, 29.7, (Translated by Frank Williams); Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, Apostolic Christianity, Chapter VI, Section 39, Page 402; Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, First Division, Volume II, § 20.3, p 230; Second Division, Volume I, § 23.1, Pella, pp 113-115

1. The Jewish Calendar

The festivals of Judaism at the time of Christ were celebrated in accordance with the Jewish lunar calendar. This lunar calendar consisted of twelve lunar months, each containing twenty-nine or thirty days[a], and each commencing and ending with the phase of “new” moon. Our modern calendar, based upon the Roman model, requires that twelve months contain 365 days. A year based upon the Jewish calendar averaged 354 days. In order to account for the time difference between twelve lunar cycles and a year containing 365 days, an additional month was added to the Jewish calendar roughly seven times every nineteen years. This way each month and festival would continue to occur in the appropriate season, (i.e. spring, summer, harvest, planting, etc). Any attempt to reconcile a chronology of events dating to the time of Christ must account for differences between the various calendars.

2. The Jewish Day

The Jewish day begins at sunset rather than midnight, in accordance with the principle:

⁵ God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. - Genesis 1:5

So, to a Jew of Jesus’ day, Saturday would begin at roughly 7:00 P.M. (sunset) on what we call Friday night. All that evening and night would be the early part of Saturday, and the daylight portion of Saturday would continue until sunset on Saturday night. As soon as the sun sets on Saturday night, Sunday would begin.

In addition, the daylight portion of each day was divided into twelve equal “hours”. The length of these “hours” would vary depending upon the time of year. In summer, the days are longer, and so the hours are longer.

3. The Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread

The Passover was observed on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, the month of Aviv or Nisan, at sunset:

⁴ ” ‘These are the LORD’s appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: ⁵ The LORD’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. ⁶ On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. ⁷ On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. ⁸ For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.’ ” -Leviticus 23:4-8[b]

The LORD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread (v 6) was observed from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the same month. The first (v 7) and last (v 8) days of this feast are sacred days on which no work is to be performed, similar in this regard to the regular weekly Sabbath:

¹ The LORD said to Moses, ² “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

³ ” ‘There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD. -Leviticus 23:1-3

And the Passover may not be observed anywhere except the Temple at Jerusalem, hence the migration of pilgrims to the Holy City recorded through scripture[c]:

⁵ You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the LORD your God gives you ⁶ except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. There you must sacrifice the Passover in the evening, when the sun goes down, on the anniversary of your departure from Egypt. ⁷ Roast it and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose. Then in the morning return to your tents. ⁸ For six days eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day hold an assembly to the LORD your God and do no work. -Deuteronomy 16:5-8

The scriptural requirements for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread have not changed since the time of Moses, who according to tradition received these instructions directly from G-d. But the practical application of scripture and the practices associated with Passover have varied as a consequence of earthly limitations. In modern Judaism no lamb is sacrificed, because there is no priest to perform the sacrifice, and no Temple at which to sacrifice. Therefore today’s Passover is no guide to the practices of the Second Temple period. For the purposes of any chronology of Jesus’ crucifixion, which occurred at the time when many had come to Jerusalem to observe the Passover, we must have knowledge of the procedures followed in Roman occupied Judea under Tiberius Caesar.

4. The Passover during the Time of the Crucifixion of Christ

Philo Judaeus was an influential Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt from about 20 BC to about 50 AD. Philo risked his life to plead for the Jewish way of life before Gaius (Caligula), so his commitment to truth and personal conviction seem assured[d]. Since Philo was born before Christ’s nativity and lived nearly twenty years after the crucifixion, his testimony concerning the customs observed at Passover should be particularly relevant to our study. In his treatise on the Special Laws, II, The Fourth Festival, (XXVII (145-149), Philo discusses “the Passover, which the Hebrews call pascha, on which the whole people offer sacrifice, beginning at noonday and continuing till evening” (145). He further states “…the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions” (148). Finally he tells us that this all occurs on “And this universal sacrifice of the whole people is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the [first] month…” (149). Another witness, Josephus, writing of Passover shortly before the Jewish revolt (65 AD), puts it thusly:

So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice, (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves,) and many of us are twenty in a company, found the number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; which, upon the allowance of no more than ten that feast together, amounts to two millions seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons[e] that were pure and holy; for as to those that have the leprosy, or the gonorrhea, or women that have their monthly courses, or such as are otherwise polluted, it is not lawful for them to be partakers of this sacrifice; nor indeed for any foreigners neither, who come hither to worship. -Josephus, Wars, VI, ix, 3

This agrees well with Philo, except for the times of sacrifice. We will presume that that Josephus is counting hours from daybreak since the Talmud considers invalid as a Passover sacrifice any animal killed before noon on the fourteenth of Nisan (Mishnah Zebahim 1:2, 1:3; Bavli Zebahim 91A). The Talmud was composed after the destruction of the Second Temple, but many of the ordinances arguably refer to practices of the Temple at the time of Christ.

So according to our testimony, two and a half to three million pilgrims would descend upon Jerusalem in the middle of Nisan to celebrate the Passover. On the afternoon of the fourteenth, between noonday and evening or between 3:00 to 5:00 P.M., hundreds of thousands of lambs would be slain, their blood caught by a priest in the Temple court and sprinkled upon the alter. Then the carcasses were roasted with fire, and taken to a place chosen by each family where the rest of the Passover meal had been prepared. There, with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, the lamb was eaten as the sun set. But as we have seen, according to Jewish observance the fifteenth day of Nisan begins when the sun sets on the fourteenth. So the Passover meal ushered in the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, upon which the children of Israel would hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work (Lev.23:8).

5. The Feast of Unleavened Bread during the Time of the Crucifixion of Christ

Since the Passover meal also involves unleavened bread, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread immediately follows the Passover Seder, many people in Jesus’ time did not distinguish them as two separate festivals. This was the case when Luke explained, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching…” (Luke 21:1), and “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.” (Luke 21:7).

Before we accuse Luke of being an ignorant Gentile, consider the usage of Josephus, “…we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread.” (Ant., II, xv, 1). Where did the eighth day come from if not the inclusion of the Passover? Or, again, “…at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” (Ant., XIV, ii, 1), and “…on the feast of unleavened bread, which was now come, it being the fourteenth day of the month…” (Wars, V, iii, 1) [f]. Josephus grew up in a leading sacerdotal family, a descendent of the Hasmonaean priest-kings. Surely he would be familiar with the religious terminology of his own time?

This convention also appears in the Talmud, with examples such as: “R. Jehoshua said: ‘By “seven” is meant the seven days of Passover, by “eight” is meant…’” (Bavli ‘Erubin, 40B); “…Come and hear: He who has not kept the feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles…” (Bavli Hagigah, 17B). If the fourteenth of Nisan is combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread (seven days from the fifteenth through the twenty-first) as the “Passover”, how is this not eight days of Passover? Could the term Passover apply to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, not including the actual day of Passover? It appears that these terms could be used quite loosely, and with variant meanings. But since these are the words of Israel’s most prominent priests and Rabbi’s, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the terms for Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were often used interchangeably. Sometimes the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” contains the actual day of Passover, and sometimes the “Passover” includes days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Not so with Philo, to whom the distinction is clear:

THE FIFTH FESTIVAL

XXVIII. (150) And there is another festival combined with the feast of the Passover, having a use of food different from the usual one, and not customary; the use, namely, of unleavened bread, from which it derives its name…(155) And this feast is begun on the fifteenth day of the month, in the middle of the month, on the day on which the moon is full of light…(156) And, again, the feast is celebrated for seven days…(157) And of the seven days, Moses pronounces two, the first and the last, holy; giving, as is natural, a preeminence to the beginning and to the end…(158) And the unleavened bread is ordained because their ancestors took unleavened bread with them when they went forth out of Egypt, under the guidance of the Deity… – Philo, The Special Laws, II, The Fifth Festival, XXVIII (150-158)

Philo’s explanation fits very well with the ordinances described by Moses in Leviticus Chapter 23, our starting point for the definitions of these festivals. He confirms that this feast begins on the fifteenth of the month, even as he explained that Passover is observed on the fourteenth. He notices that the fifteenth is always a “full” moon, which is obviously the case with lunar months which commence upon the phase of “new” moon. In other words, the month begins upon first sighting of the “new” moon; the moon becomes brighter for the first half of the month, becomes “full” in the middle of the month, and wanes during the second half of the month. The next “new” moon marks the beginning of the next lunar month.

Philo also confirms that the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread were observed as holy and preeminent in his own time. Exactly how these days were observed, he does not say. We may assume that a sacred assembly was held, and that these two days were treated as a Sabbath in regards to work, since these were the stipulations of Moses, to whom Philo defers in this regard. And this brings us to a final point concerning these Jewish rituals. For when G-d ordained the appointed feasts of the LORD (Leviticus 23:1) through Moses, starting with the weekly Sabbath (v 3), and the feasts of Passover (v 5) and Unleavened Bread (v 6-8), the offering of First Fruits was next established (v 9-14).

6. The Offering of First Fruits during the Time of the Crucifixion of Christ

Starting with Moses, as seems appropriate:

⁹ The LORD said to Moses, ¹⁰ “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. ¹¹ He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. ¹² On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, ¹³ together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil-an offering made to the LORD by fire, a pleasing aroma-and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine. ¹⁴ You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. -Leviticus 23:9-14

Once again, the question is not whether, but how this ordinance was celebrated during the time of Christ. The First Fruits offering appears between the feasts of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost in Leviticus Chapter 23. Since the list appears to be sequential, it is reasonable that First Fruits happens somewhere in this order. The first problem is when? The feast is associated with an early grain harvest, but the only specific time reference is that the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath (v 11). To what Sabbath, then, does this refer? After Moses’ death, his successor Joshua held the Passover at a place called Gilgal. The observance of this Passover provides additional insight:

¹⁰ On the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, while camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, the Israelites celebrated the Passover. ¹¹ The day after the Passover, that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land: unleavened bread and roasted grain. ¹² The manna stopped the day after they ate this food from the land; there was no longer any manna for the Israelites, but that year they ate of the produce of Canaan. -Joshua 5:10-12

The fact that they ate bread and roasted grain from the produce of Canaan for the first time was proof to Hebrew scholars that the First Fruits offering must have already been performed, “You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God.” (Leviticus 23:14). Based upon this precedent, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time counted the fifteenth Nisan as the day that Passover was completed, and concluded that the Special Sabbath of the first day of Unleavened Bread was indeed that Sabbath spoken of in Leviticus 23:11. This led Pharisees to celebrate First Fruits on the sixteenth of Nisan, the day after the (Special) Sabbath of the fifteenth. The sect of Sadducees, however, reasoned that the Passover at Gilgal must have fallen on a weekly Sabbath (either 14 or 15 Nisan fell on the weekly Sabbath; it can be reasoned either way). So in the view of the Sadducees First Fruits always fell on the Sunday which followed the first weekly Sabbath after Passover[g]. Philo appears to support the position of the Pharisees when he says:

THE SIXTH FESTIVAL

XXIX. (162) There is also a festival on the day of the paschal feast, which succeeds the first day, and this is named the sheaf, from what takes place on it; for a sheaf is brought to the alter as a first fruit both of the country which the nation has received for its own, and also of the whole land…- Philo, The Special Laws, II, The Sixth Festival, XXIX (162)

Philo’s explanation seems very reminiscent of the language in the Book of Joshua, and he never assigns an actual date. But Josephus is unambiguous when he tells us:

In the month of Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and is the beginning of our year, on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries, (for in this month it was that we were delivered from bondage under the Egyptians,) the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice which I before told you we slew when we came out of Egypt, and which was called the Passover; and so we do celebrate this passover in companies, leaving nothing of what we sacrifice till the day following. The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them. And while they suppose it proper to honor God, from whom they obtain this plentiful provision, in the first place, they offer the first-fruits of their barley, and that in the manner following: They take a handful of the ears, and dry them, then beat them small, and purge the barley from the bran; they then bring one tenth deal to the altar, to God; and, casting one handful of it upon the fire, they leave the rest for the use of the priest. And after this it is that they may publicly or privately reap their harvest. They also at this participation of the first-fruits of the earth, sacrifice a lamb, as a burnt-offering to God. -Josephus, Antiquities, III, x, 5

This passage of Josephus really defines the relationships between all three festivals, as well as discussing sacrifices performed for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the offering of First Fruits. Josephus’ opinion concerning the sixteenth of Nisan is also corroborated by Talmudic passages, “He ordained also at the same time that on the sixteenth day of Nissan, called the day of Noph (the day of waving the omer: Lev. xxiii. 11)” (Bavli Succah, 41A), and “On the fifth of Nissan the second rain fell, and on the sixteenth of that month they already offered up the new grain…” (Bavli Taanith, 5A).

7. Summary of Festal Observances During the Time of Christ’s Passion

(a.) 14 Nisan: The Passover; (sometimes included as a part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread)

(i.) Various ordinances concerning ceremonial cleanliness for Passover (being all duly purified with holy ablutions” (Philo, the Special Laws, II, The Fourth Festival, XXVII, 148) ; start no new work after noon in preparation for Sabbath of fifteenth;

(ii.) From noon to evening, all of Israel sacrifices their lambs in the Temple courtyard. One lamb suffices for each company of ten to twenty Israelites. A Priest catches the blood and sprinkles it on the alter. The lambs are roasted with fire, and taken to the place where each company has planned their feast.

(iii.) The Passover meal is eaten as the sun sets. The meal ushers in the fifteenth of Nisan, and with it the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

(b.) 15 Nisan: The First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Special Sabbath); (first day of seven day feast also sometimes designated as the week of Passover)

(i.) Begins at sunset of the fourteenth. First day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which will continue for seven days. For seven days, every day, they will they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. (Jos., Ant., III, x, 5). We don’t know anything else about this feast for the priest(s).

(ii.) In addition to which: And of the seven days, Moses pronounces two, the first and the last, holy; giving, as is natural, a preeminence to the beginning and to the end…- Philo, The Special Laws, II, The Fifth Festival, XXVIII (157); and ⁷On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. ⁸ For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. (Leviticus 23:7-8). So the fifteenth was like a Sabbath as regarding work, and the Pharisees had interpreted that it was indeed the very Sabbath which preceded the First Fruits offering. The sacred assembly was also a unique feature to this day.

(c.) 16 Nisan: The Offering of First Fruits; (also called waving the sheaf or omer)

(i.) Second day of Feast of Unleavened Bread.

(ii.) Not a Sabbath. (Although it could occur on the weekly Sabbath if Passover fell on a Thursday).

(iii.) The First Fruits of the barley harvest are offered to the Lord. After this offering, people may begin to eat the new harvest.

(iv.) A lamb is also sacrificed as a burnt-offering to God.

(v.) The normal daily sacrifices associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread were performed in addition to the First Fruits offerings.

8. The Reconciliation of the Gospel Chronologies

All four Gospel accounts agree that Jesus and his disciples had traveled to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread[h]. Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution were all concurrent with the activities of these holy days. The first definitive reference to a specific day occurs during the planning of Jesus’ Last Supper, as the three Synoptic writers disclose:

All three writers speak of preparing the Passover meal on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Obviously, they do not mean that they started on the fifteenth (first day of Unleavened Bread) to prepare a meal that would be eaten on the fourteenth (Passover). Rather they are combining the Passover day and the Feast of Unleavened Bread into one festival, a usage that we have already noticed. But Mark and Luke both specify that this was the very day on which the Passover lamb was to be slain, the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan according to all of our first century sources. And the upper room was secured with the explanation that Jesus and his disciples would there partake of the traditional Passover meal. So it appears that Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples as the sun set at the conclusion of the fourteenth of Nisan, and that this meal that was technically finished on the fifteenth of Nisan. We have no indication of the actual day of the week in these passages.

Other theories, which are widely accepted today, conclude that the Last Supper was eaten at sunset between the thirteenth and fourteenth of Nisan. Justification for these beliefs is provided along various lines of reasoning: (1.) The Passover was always intended to be eaten at the sunset commencing the thirteenth of Nisan, and Jewish tradition misinterpreted the LORD’s intent in this regard[i]; (2.) Jesus, having foreknowledge that he was to sacrifice his life at the time when the Passover lamb was sacrificed, was granted special dispensation to celebrate the Passover a day early[j]; (3.) The Jewish custom provided for sacrificing the Passover lamb on the afternoon of the thirteenth, if the fifteenth fell on a weekly Sabbath. This was done so that the Passover sacrifice would not interfere with the preparation for the Sabbath[k]; (4.) Various other reconstructions based upon differences in calendars and scriptural interpretations between various Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Qumran), as well as differences between Galilean and Judean practices (some of which are recognized in the Talmud) support Last Supper dates of either the thirteenth or fourteenth of Nisan. Some of these theories even suggest that the Passover lambs were sacrificed on two consecutive days in deference to the customs of these divers groups[l].

The limiting factor in all of these arguments is the lack of exact information concerning the festal rituals in the time of Christ. Philo’s statements are authoritative and contemporaneous, but want specific detail. Josephus lived during the Second Temple period, shortly after Christ. But he wrote after the destruction of the Temple, and his terminology seems very loose for a priest. The Talmud was written over a period of many years, beginning shortly after 70 AD, from the perspective of Judaism subsequent to the Second Temple. But the Talmud does not catalogue the differing opinions of Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees, and it does not provide a chronology for the establishment of the various rites. Thus it is often difficult to ascertain which Talmudic ordinances were in practice during the Second Temple, and whether these practices were universally observed by all sects.

But as long as methods exist of reconciling all of the known facts, we don’t need to know which of these theories is exactly correct. Each theory depends upon interpretation of events for which we lack exact knowledge. The timelines which place the Last Supper at the conclusion of the thirteenth are probably every bit as valid as those which place the Last Supper at the conclusion of the fourteenth; it’s just a question of which assumptions you make for the unknown factors. Our purpose is merely to show how the Gospel accounts fit together, and to demonstrate their historicity with regard to known Jewish and Roman customs of the first century AD. So we need only one viable method of reconciliation to pursue our goals. With this in mind, we will proceed on the basis that the Last Supper occurred “On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb”. Since Philo, Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud agree that the lamb was slain on the afternoon of the fourteenth, we will continue to assume that date, notwithstanding the possibility that other variants might have existed. Now John is the least specific of the Gospel writers concerning the time for the Last Supper, stating only:

¹It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. ²The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. -John 13:1-2

Exactly when is just before the Passover Feast, three days or setting the table? Originally written as a Greek manuscript with no chapters or verses, and little punctuation, could “It was just before the Passover Feast”, or the entirety of verse 1, be placed at the end of chapter 12? Without the detailed references provided by the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, this passage would be very difficult to date. On the evening of the Last Supper, (which was the fifteenth of Nisan once the sun set), Jesus went to the garden of Gethsemane for prayer[m]. There he was arrested[n], and subjected to a series of hearings and trials which lasted through the night. Sometime during the morning of the fifteenth (or the fourteenth on the alternate timeline), Jesus was condemned to die by crucifixion. The day of the crucifixion is referred to in all four Gospels as a day of preparation. Since this term bears on the chronology for the crucifixion, it behooves us to investigate its meaning and derivation.

The Greek noun translated “preparation” in reference to the day of crucifixion is παρασκευὴ or paraskeuē. Each of the Synoptic Gospels uses paraskeuē once to denote this specific day. The Gospel of John uses paraskeuē on three occasions to describe this particular day. The noun paraskeuē is used no where else in the Bible. The term originally evolved to describe the day before the weekly Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Since work was forbidden on the Sabbath, meals and other preparations were completed on the preceding Friday. The Modern Greek name for Friday is still παρασκευὴ. Whether this term would also apply to a preparation day prior to a Jewish feast day is debated. The loose variants of terminology applied to the feast days in the first century further complicate issues. Finally, it seems evident that John in particular was offering an abridged version of the Jewish festivals to his gentile audience, in order to avoid the detailed explanations of Jewish religious traditions unnecessary for the practice of Christianity. Let us review all six cases where the word παρασκευὴ occurs in the Christian Bible:

(i.) On the day after the crucifixion, the chief priests approached Pilate to request a guard for Jesus’ tomb, “The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate” (Matthew 27:62). No indication is given that would lead anyone to think this was not preparation for the Sabbath.

(ii.) After Jesus’ death on the cross, “⁴²It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, ⁴³Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body” (Mark 15:42-43). Here, Mark tells us that this was indeed the preparation before a Sabbath.

(iii.) After Jesus’ death on the cross, late in the afternoon, “It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54). Luke confirms that this was the day before a Sabbath.

(iv.) On the morning of the crucifixion, shortly before Jesus was condemned, “It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
‘Here is your king,’ Pilate said to the Jews” (John 19:14). Does John mean that this was the preparation day of the Passover, when the lamb was slain? Or does he mean that this was a Friday (παρασκευὴ) that happened to fall in the week of Passover? If John is telling us that this is the preparation day for the Passover feast, this is the only passage in the Bible where παρασκευὴ is so used. When Jesus and his disciples discussed preparing the Passover for the Last Supper (see above), the word translated “prepare” on six occasions was ἑτοιμάζω (Matthew 26:17, 19; Mark 14:12, 16; Luke 22:8, 13). The most likely interpretation of this phrase is that John is speaking in loose terms to a gentile audience of the Friday (παρασκευὴ) that happened to fall in the week of Passover.

(v.) During the crucifixion, the ruling priests approached Pilate to hurry the executions so that they would not interfere with the festival rites, “Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down” (John 19:31). In this passage John concurs that the next day was a Sabbath. Technically speaking, the day after the Passover sacrifice, the fifteenth of Nisan is also a type of Sabbath. But John’s language is so vague compared to the explicit explanations given in the Synoptic accounts (see above) that it is hard to imagine that he was making such a technical point. Notice the reference to Jews rather than chief priests in this verse. Now the author of the fourth Gospel assures us that he was welcome in the house of the high priest (John 18:15), so he was well aware of the appropriate titles for offices of the Levitical priesthood. The fact that he calls these ruling priests Jews shows that John no longer identified himself as one of them. And referring to them as Jews offers additional proof that John was glossing over the technical nuances of Judaism as of little interest to his predominantly gentile audience.

(vi.) On the same day, after Jesus’ death, “Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there” (John 19:42). John would obviously not refer to the “Jewish” day of preparation if he was writing to a Jewish audience. If you are still having trouble seeing the looseness of expression in John’s Gospel, go back and compare these three passages to the explanations of festal observances given by Moses, Joshua, Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, and the Synoptic Gospels. Since all four Gospels use the word παρασκευὴ to describe this day and no other, and the Synoptic Gospels are most specific about celebrating the Last Supper Passover on the day the lamb was customarily sacrificed, and John’s various descriptions of the Jewish day of preparation of Passover Week where the next day was to be a special Sabbath seem clearly to be glossing over details unnecessary for a gentile audience, it seems most likely that Jesus was crucified on Friday, Nisan 15.

The only other reference by John to the timeline of the crucifixion occurred when “the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover” (John 18:28). A common interpretation based upon this and the passage previously discussed in John 19:14 is that the crucifixion occurred on the day on which the lambs were sacrificed for the single day of Passover. But consider John’s language on other occasions, “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover” (John 2:13), “one of the Jewish festivals” (John 5:1), “The Jewish Passover Feast was near” (John 6:4) and “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover” (John 11:55). None of the other Gospels ever refer to the “Jewish” Passover. John clearly did not expect his audience to have a deep understanding of the Jewish festival rites. And he never refers to any specifics of the feast. He never mentions sacrificing the lamb, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or the First Fruits Offering. If his purpose was to accurately designate the day of crucifixion in this fashion, all he had to say was “when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb” or “the day before the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread” to be as specific as the three Synoptic Gospels, (ancient testimony indicates that he possessed the Synoptic Gospels when writing the fourth Gospel).

We have observed multiple instances wherein Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus, and even the Talmud use the term “Passover” to refer the events of the entire week which technically includes Passover, The Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the First Fruits Offering. So do we really think that John, who was still explaining that these were Jewish festivals, who never refers to any ordinance of this festival week other than Passover and Sabbath, was more technically specific in his terminology that the Synoptic writers? A more reasonable suggestion for John’s assertion that the Jewish leaders… wanted to be able to eat the Passover is that there was another feast associated with the Passover Week, which fell on the fifteenth of Nisan. Going back to Moses, we know that:

⁶ On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD’s Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. ⁷ On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. -Leviticus 23:6-7

In addition, Josephus told us:

The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. -Josephus, Antiquities, III, x, 5

So if the Jewish leaders wanted to eat this feast for the priest on the day of the sacred assembly, do we think that John would stop his Gospel to give a ten page tutorial on exactly how these events were related? Or would he more likely just say the priests wanted to eat a feast of the Passover season? This is the question that determines whether you believe that the crucifixion occurred on the fourteenth or the fifteenth of Nisan[o].

If you believe, after the preceding exercise, that John was definitely saying that the crucifixion took place on the fourteenth of Nisan; then you should investigate the various explanations for why Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover one day early. Understanding these theories will require some research, but it is an exercise not without rewards. The good news is that this interpretation opens up more days of the week for the crucifixion, since the “preparation” could loosely apply to the “Sabbath” of the fifteenth of Nisan, rather than the weekly Sabbath. This provides a great deal of latitude for those who are concerned over whether Jesus rose from the grave within three days, after three days, or on the third weekday after having been entombed[p]. In addition, several Talmudic passages that could possibly refer to Jesus of Nazareth describe his execution on the “Eve of Passover”[q].

9. The Timeline of the Crucifixion

Two Days before the Crucifixion

13 Nisan, Wednesday

(Or 12 Nisan, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday)

___________

Sunset_____

The Day before the Crucifixion

14 Nisan, Thursday

(Or 13 Nisan, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday)

* Passover/Last Supper is prepared during day (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13)

* Upper Room is Secured for Dinner

* Passover/Last Supper is begun as sun sets (Matthew 26:20-35; Mark 14:17-31; Luke 22:14-38; John 13:1-17:26)

____________

Sunset______

The Day of the Crucifixion

15 Nisan, Friday

(Or 14 Nisan, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday[r])

* Passover/Last Supper is finished

* Jesus and eleven disciples retire to the Garden of Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives for prayer (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:40-46; John 18:1)

* Jesus is arrested (Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-11)

* Jesus spends the entire night in hearings and trials

- Preliminary Hearing before Annas, (who had been high priest from 6-15 AD, father-in-law to Joseph Caiaphas who was current high priest, still addressed as “high priest”, much as a retired General is still addressed as General) (John 18:12-23)

- Hearing before Joseph Caiaphas, (high priest from 18-36 AD), and trial before Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57-27:1; Mark 14:33-15:1; Luke 22:52-71; John 18:24-28)

- First Hearing before Pontius Pilate (Roman procurator of Judea from 26-36 AD) (Matthew 27:2-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-7; John 18:28-19:16)

- Hearing before Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, from the death of his father, Herod the Great, until 39 AD) (Luke 23:8-12)

- Final Hearing before Pilate; Condemned to die (Matthew 27:2-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:11-25; John 18:28-19:16)

* Jesus is Crucified (Matthew 27:31-44; Mark 15:20-32; Luke 23:26-43; John 19:16-27)

- Placed on cross at roughly 9:00 AM (our time)

- Darkness begins at noon and lasts until time of death

* Jesus’ Death and Burial (Matthew 27:45-61; Mark 15:33-47; Luke 23:44-56; John 19:28-42)

- Death at roughly 3:00 in afternoon (our time), earthquake, Temple veil rent, dead rise from graves

__________

Sunset____

***

***

***

The Following Sunday and Later Dates

*Many Eyewitness Accounts of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-20; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-21:25; Acts 1:1-11)

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®: Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

2.) Titus Flavius Josephus:

Works by this author published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted. Posthumous works may be copyrighted based on how long they have been published in certain countries and areas.

Citations are from the William Whiston translation published by Thompson & Thomas in 1901. (Whiston’s translation was originally completed in 1736). This version of Whiston is in the public domain and available as a .pdf file on Google books.

A better reading translation (still under copyright) is that of P. L. Maier, ed./trans., Josephus -The Essential Works , Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1994

Flavius Josephus at CCEL (Whiston Translation) http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Jerome, on Josephus (at CCEL) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xv.html

3.) Philo of Alexandria:

Works by this author published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted. Posthumous works may be copyrighted based on how long they have been published in certain countries and areas.

Philo at EarlyJewishWritings (C.D. Yonge Translation) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

Philo at WikiSource http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Philo

Jerome, on Philo (at CCEL) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xiii.html

Jerome, on Philo (at WikiSource) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_III/Lives_of_Illustrious_Men/Jerome/Philo_Judaeus

4.) Babylonian Talmud:

I normally use Jacob Nuesner’s translation for Talmudic references, but I have not yet obtained permissions to reproduce his text. The citations in this article are from Michael L. Rodkinson’s translation (incomplete) which is in the public domain. I referred each citation to the Nuesner and Soncino translations to confirm applicability.

The Babylonian Talmud at SacredTexts (Michael L. Rodkinson Translation) http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

[b] See also Exodus 12:1-51; Numbers 9:1-14; Deuteronomy 16:1-8

[c] See also II Kings 23:21-23; II Chronicles 30:1-27; 35:1-19; Ezra 6:19-22; Ezekiel 45:21-24

[d] There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Caius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Caius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Caius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Caius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Caius’s words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book XVIII, viii, 1.

See also Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, XLIV (349).

[e] 256,500 lambs were slain in two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00 on the afternoon of the fourteenth, to provide for 2,700,200 people. This record was compiled at the request of Cestius Gallus, Roman Governor of Syria. Josephus also mentions that when Cestius visited Jerusalem upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread, the people came about him not fewer in number than three millions (Wars, II, xiv, 3). This may or may not be the same occasion.

[f] Other instances of this usage by Josephus include: Ant., XVII, ix, 3; and Wars II, i, 3)

[g] I am very much indebted to Dr. S. Safrai for this insight into the difference of opinion between Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the offering of First Fruits. Please refer to pp 892-893 of Chapter Seventeen, The Temple, in The Jewish People in the First Century, S. Safrai and M.Stern.

[h] Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1; John 12:1

[i] It certainly seems from the account of the first Passover (Exodus 12:1-50) that the Israelites left Egypt on the same day that the firstborn was slain (v 50), else why did they not have time to leaven their bread (v 29-39)? And Numbers 33:3 indicates “The Israelites set out from Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after the Passover.” If the Israelites left on the fifteenth, then the firstborn was slain at midnight of the fifteenth, and Passover occurred at the sunset separating the fourteenth from the fifteenth. This would support the Jewish tradition.

[j] During Moses’ second celebration of Passover in Numbers 9:1-13, “some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body” (v 6). Moses asked the LORD what should be done in these cases, and a permanent dispensation was granted that those who are unclean or on a journey during the time of Passover may “celebrate it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight.” Following this precedent, it is argued that the LORD granted his Son dispensation to celebrate Passover a day early, rather than a month later. Obviously this type of theological interpretation is driven by factors outside the scope of our study, and may be neither proven nor disproved with the available evidence.

[k] The Talmud specifically stipulates that Passover may not fall on a Friday (Sanhedrin 13B), and this is considered in the process of intercalating leap months. But the logic for argument (3.) is that Passover was celebrated a day early at the time of Christ, prior to the Talmudic ruling that eliminated the conflict. The Talmud also claims that Hillel the Elder (30 BC – 10 AD) ruled that the Passover sacrifice overrides the weekly Sabbath restriction (T. Pesahim 4:1-2; T. B. Pesahim 66a-b). But this ruling was attributed to Hillel long after his passing. Samaritan and Karaite tradition does not suspend Sabbath restrictions for the Passover.

[l] For an interesting overview of many of these proposals the reader is referred to Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, The Problem of The Last Supper, pp 76-90, Zondervan, 1978

[m] Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1

[n] Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-11

[o] No matter which timeline you choose, the trial described by the Gospel accounts was not in compliance with standard Jewish law.

[p] Matthew 12:38-40; 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:39-40, 62-64; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29-30; Luke 9:22; 18;33; 24:6-7, 21, 46; John 2:19-22; Acts 10:40; I Corinthians 15:4

[q] Sanhedrin 43a, 67a

[r] Whether Passover could have been held on Friday depends upon whether the Talmudic restriction was already in force at the time of Christ. It also depends on whether the Passover observance was moved to avoid interference with the day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath, as has been proposed.

…Based on this analysis, Tacitus provides an independent Roman witness to the death of Christ. So, in addition to the four written narratives depicting the crucifixion which were drawn from witnesses sympathetic to Christ, Josephus strongly infers concurrence among the Jewish opposition, and Tacitus confirms the official Roman agreement. Three separate societies with conflicting objectives, yet all three substantiate the fact of Christ’s death by order of the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. Having established this material fact, let us examine the four Gospel narratives, each based upon eyewitness testimony, for the details.

Raphael, Christ's Charge to St. Peter

2. A Difference of Perspective

Ancient testimony agrees that Matthew wrote the first Gospel account in the Hebrew language[1]. This premise strongly infers that Matthew’s Gospel was written when the church was still primarily comprised of converted Jews, before the first major missionary works were begun among the gentiles. So Matthew was written by an Hebrew to a Jewish audience. The same testimony indicates that Mark was written by Peter’s interpreter[2] to an audience that Peter could not address directly. The most likely scenario is that Mark translated Peter’s oral message into Latin during Peter’s stay in Rome, but wrote the Gospel of Mark in Greek with the idea that most literate Romans were also fluent in Greek. Mark, then, was written by an Hebrew for a Roman audience. Paul’s companion Luke was a gentile physician, considered a part of Greek culture before his conversion. Since he accompanied Paul[3] on missionary journeys through Greece and proconsular Asia, we must assume that Luke wrote his works to the Greek world at large.

During the forty’s and fifty’s AD, when the Synoptic Gospels were written, Christians were being persecuted by the Jewish nation, but still enjoyed toleration as a sect of Judaism in the Roman world. The Temple stood on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, and the high priest and ruling council (Sanhedrin) administered much of Judean policy on behalf of their Roman overlords. Intrinsic to the Gospel writers of this era was the attitude of hope among Christians for one day making peace with their Jewish cousins. Even for those Christians among the gentiles, the plight of the church of Jerusalem, which included Jesus’ family and many of those who walked with Jesus in this world, was of great consequence. Much of the book of Matthew, in particular, is dedicated to pleading the case for Christ’s fulfillment of messianic prophecy to an audience steeped in the Jewish scripture.

But John wrote a Gospel nearly forty years after the other three. By this time, John had returned from exile on the isle of Patmos under Domitian, and was living among the gentiles in Ephesus[4], the capitol of proconsular Asia. Most of John’s closest friends had already paid for their Christianity with their lives. His master Jesus had been crucified, his own brother James beheaded by Agrippa, Peter and Paul had shed martyr’s blood for Nero, and James, the brother of Christ, had been one of the last Christians executed by the Jewish rulers of Judea. The Jewish nation had ceased to exist, the Temple had been thrown down, and Christians were hoping rather for an end of persecution by the Romans, having already survived Nero and Domitian. As we have already shown, the basic premise that John wrote the fourth Gospel is supported by the Muratorian Fragment, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John, as well as the writings of church fathers Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius[5]. So why did John feel the need, in his last years, to write a fourth Gospel in addition to the three that had been written?

John certainly knew of the existing Gospels. Matthew was written to the Jews while John was an elder of the church in Jerusalem. Clement of Rome had an in-depth knowledge of two or three of the Synoptics during the ninety’s AD, and he clearly assumed these Gospels were recognized as authoritative in Corinth of Achaia (Greece) as well. Papias summarized the origins of Matthew and Mark from Hierapolis in proconsular Asia shortly after Clement, also assuming that the identity of these Gospels was common knowledge. It would be absurd and perverse to imagine that John could have remained uninformed at Ephesus during the ninety’s AD. And it would defy the direct evidence of ancient testimony concerning the Gospel of John. Clement of Alexandria avers that John sought to enhance the message of the first three Gospels, “But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the [Synoptic] Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (Hypotyposes, as cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, xiv, 7). Irenaeus, after providing the order in which the four Gospels were written[6], states that John “seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men” (Adv. Hær. III, xi, 1), and “The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church…thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel” (ibid). Combining these statements leads to the explanation that John was aware of the three Synoptic Gospels, but that heretical doctrines had crept into the church that were not addressed by Matthew, Mark or Luke. At the encouragement of his friends and associates, John wrote the fourth Gospel to clarify the teachings of Christ, to prevent the errors of Cerinthus and others. The Muratorian Canon confirms the notion that John was encouraged by his fellow disciples and bishops to compose this Gospel, and this explanation seems to account for the relationship between Gospel of John and the Synoptics.

One of the major objections to the authenticity of the Gospel of John is the fact that John leaves out many of the incidents included in the Synoptic Gospels, while adding much material not present in the Synoptics. Based upon these differences, some aver that John contradicts the Synoptic Gospels, unaware of their contents. This they offer as proof that the Gospels, or at least some of them, were fabrications, not based upon actual eyewitness testimony at all. But a much better fitting solution has already been provided by those who were the intimates of John’s intimates. If John’s purpose was to add recollections, observations, and reflections of his own; things that he had contemplated for forty years after the Synoptics were written, would he necessarily reiterate all of the material that he was trying to augment? He took it for granted that we had already received the genealogies of Christ from Matthew and Luke, he had no news of theological consequence to add to Christ’s nativity, and it was pointless to mention Christ’s prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem after the fact[7]. Rather than providing a mechanical report of events and times, John’s purpose was to give insight into his Lord’s compassion concerning those for whom he had died. For this reason he supplements the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with four chapters of Christ’s teaching on the night of his arrest (John, Chapters 14-17) as well as the anecdote of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:1-17). This doesn’t mean that John was contradicting the other Gospel narratives. It means that he was trying to show us parts of Christ’s life that had never before been revealed, and to explain the deeper significance of those same events to those of us who never had the opportunity of walking with Christ.

Even though John had been raised a Jew, he had been living among the “Greeks” or gentiles for many years. We probably have to assume that his target audience was gentile, and that his amanuensis (Papias?) was also a gentile. For this reason, John is the only Gospel writer who never even mentions the Feast of unleavened Bread. He refers to all the events of this festive time as “Passover”, trying to keep it simple for his gentile readers. Appendix IV devotes eight pages of discussion to determination of the basic practices for the Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, and offering of First Fruits during the time of Christ. And these pages never discuss the manner in which Passover affected the intercalation of months for leap-years (Passover could not fall on a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday), or the Great Sabbath on which the lamb was chosen (Shabbat HaGadol), or even the recitation of the Hallel (Psalms 113-118). What a distraction these eight pages of instruction on Jewish festival rites would have been to the intended audience of John’s Gospel. It was not John’s purpose to proselytize converts for Judaism, but to provide answers for Christians.

So John glosses over his references to the rites of Judaism, feeling no need to burden with technical details a readership that would not include many doctors of the Jewish law. He uses the terms “Passover” and “Sabbath” as the most familiar to his non-Jewish audience[a]. And he alone of the Gospel writers appears to count the hours of the day for Jesus’ hearing with Pilate from midnight, the beginning of the official Roman day[b]. Whether this timekeeping convention was common practice throughout the Roman judiciary or whether it varied by province is hard to say. But it seems likely that this was the accepted practice for legal proceedings in proconsular Asia[c], where the Gospel of John was written. So the Gospel of John followed the convention of the Roman courts in proconsular Asia to describe Jesus’ Roman trial before Pilate to a Greco-Roman audience. The difference in perspective between John and the authors of the Synoptic Gospels will be evident in nearly every instance of overlapping material. Careful examination will allow you to perceive that John’s motive always centers on further revealing the risen Christ. Having gained this understanding, let us proceed to examine Christ’s execution.

3. The Crucifixion

Starting with the Synoptic Gospels (See Appendix IV for Chronology):

Here, the trial of Jesus has already occurred, and the verdict has been passed down. Jesus had been arrayed in the purple “royal” robe in mockery of his claim to be a king. All three authors document the name, Simon of Cyrene, in order to provide a verifiable detail to the reader. The incident has no other value to the narrative. Mark further identifies Simon by providing his lineage, a meaningless annotation unless this particular Simon and his family was somehow known by the intended audience of the first three Gospels, during the 50′s AD.  Was Simon’s oral testimony still available when the Synoptic Gospels were first published? Was he some notable personage whose family delighted in the honour that Simon held in consequence of having borne the cross of Christ[d]? The eyewitness John later records the same scene with no mention of this incident…

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

2.) Clement of Alexandria, Books of the Hypotyposes, as preserved in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, xiv, 7:

Translated by Rev. William Wilson, M.A. prior to 1885, (the publication date of the volumes in which it appeared, The Ante Nicene Fathers)

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S.

Clement of Alexandria at WikiSource

Clement of Alexandria at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

3.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies:

Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson prior to 1885, (the publication date of the volumes in which it appeared, The Ante Nicene Fathers)

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S.

Irenaeus at WikiSource

Irenaeus at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

4.) Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23 – August 25, 79), The Natural History:

English translation by John Bostock and H. T. Riley, 1855;

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S.

Chapter 77 on Google Books:

Chapter 79 at Perseus:

5.) Galen, Commentaries on Hippocrates:

Translation by Joseph Barber Lightfoot, included in his five volume Apostolic Fathers, published in 1885.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S.

Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers on Google Books:

[b] John’s reference to Pilate’s presentation of Jesus to the crowd in the sixth hour, “It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour” (John 19:14), must refer to a time before 9:00 in the morning, the time given by Mark for Jesus’ crucifixion, “It was the third hour [of daylight] when they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25). It is not reasonable to assume that John would have no knowledge of the chronology of Mark’s Gospel, which we have shown to have been universally accepted by the early church. It is far more likely that John, or his gentile amanuensis, adapted John’s eyewitness account of Jesus’ Roman trial to be more easily understandable to the expected audience. This audience would read Jesus’ trial as it read other Roman legal proceedings, according to Roman standards as set forth by the Elder Pliny in 77 AD: “The days have been computed by different people in different ways. The Babylonians reckoned from one sunrise to the next; the Athenians from one sunset to the next; the Umbrians from noon to noon; the multitude, universally, from light to darkness; the Roman priests and those who presided over the civil day, also the Egyptians and Hipparchus, from midnight to midnight…” (Pliny, Natural History, Book II, LXXIX (sometimes numbered LXXVII)). Hipparchus of Nicaea in Asia Minor recorded astronomical measurements in equinoctial hours from midnight. Apparently Pliny was indicating that certain Roman official events were logged in the same manner. So based upon this Roman custom for an official proceeding such as Jesus’ trial, the sixth hour would be the sixth from midnight, or 6:00 A.M. In a world before clocks were common, most unofficial correspondence would still refer to times with respect to the attitude of the sun in the sky (i.e. noon, dusk, an hour after noon, etc.), the only visible reference to time.

[c] Absolute proof of this explanation would require obtaining written records of the proceedings for the Assizes of proconsular Asia during the ninety’s AD. Galen, born in Pergamos around 130 AD, assures us that his native proconsular Asia had adopted the Roman solar calendar, “But it is plainly necessary that the months should be reckoned not according to the moon, as in most of the Greek cities at the present time, but, according to the sun, as in all the Asiatic cities and in many of the nations, and so the year is reckoned by the Romans…” (Commentaries on Hippocrates, I, xvii). But had they also adopted the convention of counting official hours from midnight, after the manner of their native son Hipparchus? If the proceedings of the court routinely logged motions and verdicts to hours of an official day starting at midnight, then it would be natural for a resident of that community to also refer to Jesus’ trial by Pilate in these terms. The only extant record (of which I am aware) that provides corroboration for the customs of these times is the Letter of the Smyrnaeans concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp. While residing in Ephesus, St. John appointed Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, also in proconsular Asia (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, iii, 4; Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, XXXII), so there is a connection between John’s Gospel and this Letter based upon both personal association and proximity. According to this Letter of the Smyrnaeans, Polycarp was the twelfth and final martyr of a local persecution that developed in Smyrna, when Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia, probably during the reign of Antoninus Pius. Polycarp had been staying at a farm near the city, when he was apprehended on a Friday late in the evening (§ 7). His captors granted him two hours for prayer, as a courtesy, before taking him into custody. On the way back to the city, the arresting officers tried to persuade Polycarp to offer incense and so save himself. When they failed to persuade him, they “uttered threatening words and made him dismount with speed, so that he bruised his shin, as he got down from the carriage” (§ 8). Thence, he was taken straight to the stadium, which was full of people even at this late hour, due the nature of the trial and the notoriety of Polycarp as “the father of the Christians, the puller down of our gods” (§ 12). The Roman proconsul examined Polycarp through the night, and ordered him burned alive when he would neither worship Caesar nor revile the Christ. The interesting point is that the Smyrnaeans duly record Polycarp’s death “on the seventh before the kalends of March, on a great sabbath, at the eighth hour” (§ 21). I know that this time is not conclusive, but place yourself in the shoes of the Roman proconsul for a moment, and consider whether you think it more likely, after an all-night trial, to have executed Polycarp first thing in the morning, at 8:00 A.M., or whether you think the trial would have continued through most of the next day until Polycarp was executed eight hours after daylight, or 2:00 P.M. Remember that Polycarp was a confessed transgressor, and that the whole recorded dialogue of the trial consisted of the court urging him to repent, and Polycarp refusing. How many times can you exchange variations of “worship Caesar” or “revile the Christ” and “No, I refuse!” before the proceedings become redundant? If you believe that Polycarp was probably executed at 8:00 in the morning, then the Smyrnaeans are observing the same protocol as that proposed for St. John at Ephesus, sixty years earlier.

[d] The horizontal crossbeam actually carried by the victim was known as the patibulum. The upright post was the stipes.

[2] Papias, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, III, xxxix, 14 – 15; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, i, 1; x, 5; Clement of Alexandria, Comments on the First Epistle of Peter, From the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus, and Hypotyposes in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, xiv, 6; Origen, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, VI, xxv, 5; Jerome, Lives, VIII

[3] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, i, 1; x, 1; Origen, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, VI, xxv, 6; Muratorian Fragment; Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke; Jerome, Lives, VII

[4] Polycrates, Epistle to Victor, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, V, xxiv

[5] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, i, 1; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, II, xxii, Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., VI, xiv, 7; Origen, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist, VI, xxv, 6; Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book I, vi

[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, i, 1

[7] Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:27-31

First, I am adding the epistles of the younger Pliny to this site, as a resource for others.  I have benefited so much from the ancient authors who have already been published online, that it seems only right that I give something back. I believe that the Hardy and Melmoth translations are both public domain, and they are both currently available as Google books in a ‘pdf’ format.  But it might be worthwhile to have these translations available as searchable text,  thus providing a more usable resource for research. If anyone has thoughts on this, I would appreciate the feedback. These epistles may be found under the tab ‘Lagniappe’. Just use the dropdown to go to ‘Pliny II’.

Also, I have collected most of the research material for the new essay treating the use of written materials by the early church.  The research is not yet complete, but I am working on it as I may.  As we discussed in January, we are trying a different approach with this essay:

I am posting the work as it develops, so that you may watch the  “work in progress”  unfold.  This gives everyone else the chance to think about how they would approach the problem, and to form your own conclusions independently as I form mine. Please feel free to “chime in”  with your point of view, or references from period literature that you find significant. Please remember that,  while trying to keep the ancient author’s perspective in view,  How to Live Forever accepts testimony from all ancient sources:  Roman, Greek, Jewish, Christian, Egyptian, etc.  So anyway, without further adieu,  here is the beginning (last revision was in February):

The Use of Written Materials in the Early Church

¹⁴Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. ¹⁵He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

¹⁶He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. ¹⁷The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
^{.     18}“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
.         because he has anointed me
.         to preach good news to the poor.
.         He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
.         and recovery of sight for the blind,
.         to release the oppressed,
^{.        19}to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (- Isaiah 61:1 – 2a)

²⁰Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, ²¹and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

- The Gospel According to Luke, Chapter 4 (NIV)

It is remarkable that the author of Luke finds nothing unusual in this anecdote concerning Jesus of Nazareth. According to the story, it was customary for Jesus to both read Scripture and expound upon its meaning in the Jewish synagogues in Galilee. We know that Jesus was the son of a Galilean carpenter or builder (τέκτων [tektōn])[1], a man of common upbringing. Yet here he is portrayed as confident in his ability to read and understand texts that are difficult for many well educated persons today. The Synoptic Gospels add additional corroboration in favor of Jesus’ literacy[2]; and each of the four canonical Gospels record Jesus performing exegesis of Jewish Scripture on divers occasions using the formula “it is written”[3]. If the Gospel writers thus took Jesus’ literary prowess for granted, does this also imply that a high level of literary attainment was normal among Jesus’ followers and the members of the early church? Or was Jesus’ ability in this regard an enigma, another miracle to be marveled at?

Of course, the previous evidence depends upon the value of the canonical Gospels as authoritative historical documents; a matter of some dispute in the modern world. If they were written early, either by the eyewitnesses themselves (in the cases of Matthew and John)[4] or based upon the testimony of such witnesses (in the cases of Mark and Luke), then they become the written affidavits of men who observed the miraculous. If they were written late, based upon oral traditions which were embellished over time, then they are mere legendary accounts – on par with other ancient myths.

So we have a sort of “chicken or the egg” scenario developing: Given that the earliest Christians were predisposed as a consequence of education and culture to the writing of letters and reports, then obviously some of them would write about an event as miraculous as the resurrection; On the other hand, assuming that Christ and his followers were illiterate peasants who wrote nothing, and the Gospel accounts are later embellishments of a garbled oral tradition, then the attitude toward literacy in the Gospel accounts is anachronistic, a projection of the educated point of view of each author onto the characters of legend. It does seem strange that all four Gospel authors would fall into this same trap, but the key is determination of whether Jesus’ followers were possessed of a literary tradition. All depends on the likelihood that these church documents are genuine artifacts emanating from actual eyewitnesses to Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

Jesus and many of his early disciples were raised and educated under the precepts of the Jewish culture during the Second Temple period. That this civilization had a rich tradition of ancient sacred writings, no one will deny. The oldest Hebrew writings, known as the Pentateuch, are traditionally assigned to the authorship of Moses[a] in the thirteenth century B.C., (within a hundred years, more or less). References abound throughout the pre-exilic (587 B.C.) Hebrew literature to the Book of the Law[5], the Book of the Covenant, the book of the annals of the kings of Israel, the book of the annals of the kings of Judah, etc., thus indicating a very early corpus of national literature. To put these dates in perspective, consider that the writings of Moses occurred approximately 400-500 years before the beginnings of the Greek alphabet[6]. The rest of the pre-exilic Hebrew literature was already composed by the time the Greeks were just starting to write poetry and philosophy[7]. But this should be no surprise, for Herodotus recognized around 440 B.C. that the Greeks derived “letters” from Semitic (Phoenician) sources[8].

By the fourth century, B.C., Aristotle’s pupil Theophrastus described the Jews as a “race of Philosophers[9].” His contemporary Hecataeus of Abdera knew that Moses had codified the Jewish law (i.e. in written form) and provides an almost direct quotation from the Hebrew Bible[10]. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Bible was begun in the third century B.C., during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus[11] of Egypt. From this point onward the literature of the Hebrews was available to the world at large.

But this literature also contained the Jewish Law, as ordained by JHWH. And the Hebrew people were commanded to understand and obey this law, and to teach it to their children. So how was this to be accomplished?

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

[2] Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31; Mark 2:25; 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3; 10:26

[3] Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:24, 31; Mark 7:6; 9:12, 13; 11:17; 14:21, 27; Luke 4:4, 8; 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17; 21:22; 22:37; 24:44, 46; John 8:17; 10:34; 15:25

[4] Papias, as preserved in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. III, xxxix, 14-16; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, i, 1; Clement of Alexandria, Comments on the First Epistle of Peter, (From the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus); Hypotyposes, Book VI, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II, xv; also Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VI, xiv; Origen, First Book of the Commentary on Matthew, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI, xxv ; Muratorian Canon

[5] Book of the Law: Joshua 1:8; 8:31; 8:34; 23:6; 24:26; II Kings 14:6; 22:8, 11; II Chronicles 17:9; 25:4; 34:14; (post exilic) Nehemiah 8:1, 3, 8, 18, ; 9:3; (N.T. ) Galatians 3:10

Book of the Covenant: II Kings 23:2, 21; 34:30; ; II Chronicles 34:30

book of the annals of the kings of Israel: I Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 20, 27; 22:39; II Kings 1:18; 10:34; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 28; 15:11, 15, 21, 26, 31; II Chronicles 20:34

book of the annals of the kings of Judah: I Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23; 22:45; II Kings 8:23; 12:19; 13:12; 14:15, 18; 15:6, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5

[6] William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, Harvard University Press, 1989, p. 45.

[7] Ibid., p.47.

[8] Herodotus, The Histories, V, 58-61

[9] Theophrastus, On Piety, as preserved in Porphyry, On Abstinence 2.26

[10] See note 2, p. 1106, M. Stern, The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature, Chapter Twenty Four, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section One, The Jewish People in the First Century, Volume Two. The note compares Lev 26:46; 27:34; Num. 36:13 to Hecataeus, as preserved in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica XL, 3, 6, as preserved in Photius, Bibliotheca, 244.

[11] The Letter of Aristeas; Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 12.2

(Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

…It turns out that Christians were still being tortured to deny Christ through the first decade of the fourth century[1]. Then in 313 AD, Constantinus Augustus (Constantine) and his brother-in-law, Licinius Augustus, issued

Henryk Siemiradzki. Leading Light of Christianity. Nero's Torches. 1876. Oil on canvas. National Museum, Krakow, Poland.

the Edict of Milan. With this decree, for the first time in its nearly three-hundred year existence, Christianity was formally recognized as a legal religion within the Roman Empire.

We have previously shown that cessation of testimony was sufficient to save a Christian from the Jewish persecution. Now it appears that simple repentance granted immunity from Roman capital punishment as well. It is logical to conclude that the many Christians slaughtered during the church’s first three-hundred years believed their message was worth dying for.

2. The Witnesses to the Witnesses

In reference to the stated goals of this book, we are very fortunate to possess the written transcripts of these earliest Christians’ message today. The pages of these documents contain the most graphic eyewitness accounts of resurrection ever recorded. All of these writers risked their personal safety, and many sacrificed their lives rather than renounce their beliefs, thus providing compelling evidence of their sincerity.

Because these witnesses faced such hardship, first under Jewish, and then Roman persecution, they formed a community, bound together by common peril. Many of the witnesses, such as Jesus’ original twelve Apostles, traveled together with Jesus for years and knew each other well. Over time, the church grew and spread throughout the Roman Empire, and a dialogue developed between various members of the new sect. This dialogue was frequently in the form of written correspondence, through which even the characters who never met became acquainted with each other’s testimony.

For those of us looking back at events which transpired two thousand years ago, this ongoing dialogue is essential, for it places each writer within an historical context. Rather than having an account from any one author whose place in history is unverifiable, we have an unbroken succession of accounts spanning the ages from the time of Christ to the present, and proceeding from divers authors who largely knew of the circumstances affecting their contemporaries in the Christian order. Sometimes these men wrote to each other offering encouragement, sometimes admonishment, sometimes sharing news of mutual concern, but the trail of correspondence from a plethora of writers over so many years places each character into an historical setting which cannot easily be altered. In this way, we know that the witnesses were who they claimed to be, and that they lived in the time and place necessary for them to have been witnesses.

The same types of relationships existed between our Roman sources as well. Thus we have two letters from Pliny the younger to Cornelius Tacitus describing the death of Pliny the elder, (the younger Pliny’s uncle,) as a consequence of an heroic attempt to save victims of Vesuvius’ eruption during the short reign of Titus[2]. Tacitus in turn attributes a number of anecdotes in his own histories to the previous works of Pliny the elder[3].We have Martial’s epigram honouring the younger Pliny[4], and Pliny’s letter acknowledging his corresponding gift to Martial[5]. And we find Suetonius, probably on the staff of the younger Pliny when the latter governed Bithynia Pontus[6].

We may sometimes infer opinions of disdain or rivalry from these relationships as well. We find Tacitus completely unwilling to cite his contemporary, Josephus, or even mention his existence. We know from Josephus’ own work, as corroborated by Suetonius and Dio[7], that Josephus was writing histories at court under the auspices of the Flavian Emperors. And we have Tacitus’ written admission that he owed his own advancement to the same rulers[8]. It does not seem possible that Tacitus was unaware of Josephus’ work. More probably, the omission stems from some personal disapproval of Josephus, as demonstrated by Tacitus’ anti-Semitic polemic included previously in this chapter[9].

This in turn explains why Roman authors documenting the persecution of Christians under Nero provide only a faceless multitude of afflicted, no names are given. Christian authors covering the same experience can hardly fail to note the execution of the Apostles Peter and Paul[10], two of the most influential leaders of the Apostolic Age.

Roman authors record that Domitian later executed Flavius Clemons for atheism or drifting into Jewish ways[11]. The fate of Flavius Clemons, consul at the time, was obviously important in the minds of these Romans. But we can’t determine with certainty from Roman accounts whether he was atheist[12], Jewish, or Christian. What did it matter from their perspective? Conversion to any of these ideologies was tantamount to rejection of Roman values.

Christian sources additionally record the exile of John the Apostle during the same persecution (under Domitian.) Although John is more familiar than Flavius Clemons to those of us alive today, he was not worthy of a mention to our Roman sources.

In this way, the Romans and the Christians each participated in separate but complimentary dialogues involving matters of interest to their respective communities. As a part of the ongoing Christian dialogue, the Apostle Paul’s writings were disseminated through the existing network of churches throughout the Roman world[a]. Clear evidence of this practice is provided vis-à-vis the Apostles’ own words. For example, when the Apostle Paul wrote the canonical letter to the Colossians, he instructed them:

¹⁶After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

-The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians, 4:16 (NIV)

Likewise, when he wrote to the Galatians, he addressed the letter:

¹Paul, an apostle-sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead- ²and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:

-The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, 1:1-2 (NIV)

Galatia was of course a Roman Province[13] containing numerous cities and villages. As Paul addressed the letter to the “churches[14]” of Galatia, we may presume that the Christian population of each municipality therein formed a separate church. Given that literacy was common in the Roman world, and recognizing that Paul originally founded the Christian movement in Galatia, it is hard to imagine that each church in Galatia would not desire and procure its’ own copy of such a message from the leader of their order. The Apostle Peter adds weight to this argument when he writes to the “strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia[b]“ in around 66 AD:

¹⁵Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

-The Second General Epistle of St. Peter, 3:15-16 (NIV)

How does Peter know of Paul’s various letters unless copies were being spread from church to church by believers? Not only was Peter personally familiar with the writings of Paul, but he was confident that his audience had a working knowledge of these writings and certain associated contemporaneous controversies as well. At the end of v. 16, Peter compares Paul’s letters with “other Scriptures”, thus inferring that Paul’s writings had also attained scriptural status. For this reason alone devout Christians would surely spread these New Testament treatises. Since Peter’s letter was addressed to a general Christian audience throughout Asia Minor, we should conclude that Paul’s letters were common reading material throughout the Christian world prior to Peter’s execution in 67-68 AD.

Remember that the epistles of Paul were originally just letters written to individual churches or local ministers located in divers regions of the Roman Empire. If the communications between Paul and these recipients became widespread and eventually canonical in this way, how much more would the Gospel accounts, written to the general Christian population as tutorials in the faith, be widely disseminated?

So when Paul asks Timothy to:

¹³ Bring the winter coat I left in Troas with Carpus; also the books and parchment notebooks.

-The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy, 4:13 [The Message]

To which “books” and “parchment notebooks” does he refer? The Jewish scriptures were traditionally written in scroll form[15]. The “books” in the preceding verse probably relate to these types of scrolls, and may have referred to Paul’s personal copies of the Jewish scriptures, (Old Testament scrolls to a Christian[16].) Around this time, though, the Roman poet Martial described “parchment notebooks”, a new format for publishing written works[17]:

You, who wish my poems should be everywhere with you,

and look to have them as companions on a long journey,

buy these which the parchment confines in small pages.

Assign your book-boxes to the great; this copy of me one hand can grasp.

-Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams, Book I, ii

Parchment notebooks, booklets with small pages that could be held easily in one hand, were the predecessors to the modern form of a book with many pages bound together. While Jewish Synagogue worship of today still employs scrolls of scripture out of respect for tradition, these parchment notebooks would have been ideal for dissemination of the less traditional writings of the first Christians. Paul wrote of parchment notebooks fifteen to twenty years before the reference by Martial, but they employ the same distinctive terminology[18].

So Paul was in prison, awaiting execution[19], and he wrote to his disciple Timothy asking for assistance. In these dire straits, Paul desired that Timothy bring written documents, including certain parchment notebooks. If the “books” he requested were scrolls of Old Testament scriptures, it is easy to see how they would be desired by the condemned Apostle.

But what was contained within the leaves of these “parchment notebooks” that was so important that it required Timothy to risk his own life by bringing them to Rome at the height of the Neronian persecution? Were they collections of Paul’s previous letters? Or could they have been the existing Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? (John’s Gospel was probably not written yet.) Eusebius believed that whenever Paul invoked the term “my Gospel”[20] he referred to the Gospel of his understudy, Luke[21]. Surely Paul would at least keep a copy of this Gospel on hand? Whatever these texts were, they must have been of New Testament origin. And as such they were part of the dialogue that we have been researching – a dialogue that was clearly propagating by means of the widespread dissemination of these early epistles and Gospels throughout the Christian community.

Neither were these early writings merely fuzzy hearsay recited third hand. Certain authors, such as John, Matthew and Peter claimed to be eyewitnesses. Luke and Mark claim to have written accounts gathered from eyewitnesses. Paul claimed to have been involved as a part of the opposition. And later authors deferred to the historicity of the eyewitness accounts, providing commentary but respecting the original testimony as inviolate.

So Luke wrote of Paul[22], Peter[23], John[24], Mark[25], Matthew[26], and the other Apostles. Paul mentioned Peter[27], John[28], Luke[29], Mark[30] and the other Apostles[31] in his letters. Mark discussed the doings of Peter[32], John[33], and Matthew[34]. Matthew recorded events involving Peter[35] and John[36]. The Apostle John recognized many of the twelve, including Peter, Andrew, Philip[37], Thomas[38], and Judas Iscariot[39]. And Peter demonstrated his awareness of both Paul and Paul’s letters[40]. We see in this way that the testimony of these men is inextricably bound together. Due to the cross-references included in each of their writings we must accept the fact that these men all existed as contemporaries.

The Apostle John’s brother James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD[41]. Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD[42]. Jesus’ brother James was stoned to death immediately prior to Vespasian’s siege of Jerusalem, around 68 AD[43]. John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian, in the 80′s or 90′s AD[44]. As they grew older and realized the extent to which they were at risk, the Apostles entrusted their mission to the men who had diligently and faithfully assisted them in their work[45].

Men such as Timothy[46] and Titus[47], to whom Paul wrote now canonical letters of instruction, left us no written material. Paul’s attendant Luke gave us the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, which records Christian history until about 62 AD. And as we will demonstrate in the next Section, Peter’s helper Mark left us the Gospel of Mark, based upon Peter’s recollections.

3. The Disciples of the Apostles

(i.) Clement of Rome:

But there was also a group of writers who knew the Apostles but were born after Jesus’ time. Men whose works, largely unread today, attest to the validity of the eyewitness accounts of their mentors. In this way, Clement, known to both Peter…

*************************************************************

NOTICES:

1.) Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

2.) Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.

3.) Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams:

Translated by Walter C. A. (Walter Charles Alan) Ker

Published by W. Heinemann, 1919

This work is now in the Public Domain in the United States according to Google Book Search. Copyrights may vary from country to country.

[b] So the addressees of Peter’s first epistle (I Peter 1:1). Peter’s second letter states, “Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.” – (II Peter 3:1), indicating the same target audience, perhaps broadened to include other unnamed recipients through church to church correspondence.

[2] Pliny II, Letters VI, xvi; & VI, xx

[3] Tacitus, Annals I, 69; XIII, 20; XV, 53; Histories III, 28

[4] Martial, Epigrams X, xix

[5] Pliny II, Letters III, xxi

[6] Pliny II, Letters X, xciv

[7] The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 65, Paragraphs 359-367 & Chapter 76; Suetonius, Vespasian V, vi; Dio, Roman History LXVI, 1

[8] Tacitus, Histories I, 1

[9] Tacitus, Histories V, iii-v

[10] II Timothy 4:6-8; Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians V; Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians XII; Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians IX; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, 22; 25

[11] Suetonius, Domitian XV; Dio, Roman History LXVII, 14; Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book IV, Chapter I, Preface, Paragraph 2

[12] Justin Martyr, First Apology to The Romans, VI; Athenagorus the Athenian, A Plea for the Christians, III, IV

[13] Strabo, Geography, Book XII, v, 1; Tacitus, Histories, Book II, ix

[14] Other “General” epistles written to more than one congregation include: James (James 1:1); I Peter (I Peter 1:1-2); II Peter (II Peter 1:1, 3:1,2); and possibly I John, II John, and Jude, which name no specific recipient congregation.

[15] Luke 4:17; Hebrews 10:7

[16] Melito the Philosopher, From the Book of Extracts, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, xxvi

[17] See also, Suetonius, Julius Caesar LVI, vi; Martial, Epigrams, Book I, Introduction, 1, 3, 4, 25, 29, 35, 38, 52, 53, 117; Book II, Introduction, …

[18] Carsten Peter Thiede & Matthew D’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996, Chapter 3, page 53

[19] II Timothy 1:8, 12, 15-17; 2:9-10; 4:6-8

[20] Romans 2:16; 16:25; II Timothy 2:8

[21] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, iv

[22] Acts 13:9, 13, 16, 43

[23] Acts 1:13, 15; 2:14

[24] Acts 3:1, 3, 11; 4:19

[25] Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37,39

[26] Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13

[27] Galatians 1:18; 2:7, 8, 11, 14

[28] Galatians 2:9

[29] Colossians 4:14; II Timothy 4:11

[30] Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24; II Timothy 4:11

[31] Romans 16:7; I Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:17, 19

[32] Mark 3:16; 5:37; 8:37; 8:29, 32, 33

[33] Mark 1:19, 29; 3:17; 5:37; 9:2, 38; 10:33, 41; 13:3; 14:33

[34] Mark 3:18

[35] Matthew 4:18; 10:2; 14:28, 29

[36] Matthew 4:21; 10:2

[37] John 1:40-44

[38] John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24-29

[39] John 6:71; 13:26

[40] The Second General Epistle of St. Peter 3:15-16

[41] Acts 12:1-4

[42] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, xxv

[43] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, xxiii

[44] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, xviii

[45] Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians XLII, XLIV, XLVII; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, iii, 3

[46] I Timothy 1:3

[47] Titus 1:5

The Use of Material Deriving from the Synoptic Gospels

In the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians

(Also known as I Clement)

A.) The Apostolic Fathers

There remain extant today a relatively few documents authored by those who were personally acquainted with Jesus’ disciples. These works fill a vital role in demonstrating the transition from a faith based upon the personal experience of the believer into a faith based upon documents written and endorsed by eyewitnesses. The disciples of Jesus’ disciples are commonly known as “The Apostolic Fathers”. Pre-eminent among their writings are:

1.) A letter by Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul) to the church

at Corinth (Achaia).

2.) Seven letters by Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of Peter, Paul, and possibly John). Six letters are addressed to the churches of various cities throughout the Roman Empire; the seventh to an individual, Polycarp of Smyrna.

3.) A letter by Polycarp of Smyrna (a close disciple of John) to the church at Philippi (Macedonia).

4.) Excerpts from a work in five books authored by Papias of Hierapolis, (a “hearer” of Jesus’ disciple John). These excerpts were preserved as citations by later writers, who found Papias’ subject matter useful for their own discussions. It is difficult to form generalizations concerning the writing style of Papias due to the fragmentary nature of material thus preserved.

Other examples of literature which was possibly written by those who knew the followers of Jesus include:

1.) The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)

2.) The Epistle of Barnabas

3.) The Shepherd of Hermas

4.) The Epistle to Diognetus

But these four documents are of less certain date and origin.

As Lightfoot and Westcott have shown, specific characteristic traits appear to apply to the writings of this period, and especially to the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp:

“(1) They assign a special and preeminent authority to the Apostles, while distinctly disclaiming any such exceptional position for themselves. This is the case with Clement (I Cor. 5, 47), and Ignatius (Rom. 4), speaking of S. Peter and S. Paul, and with Polycarp (Phil. 3), speaking of S. Paul, these being the only Apostles mentioned by name in their writings.

(2) On the other hand, there is no evidence that these fathers recognized a Canon of the New Testament, as a well-defined body of writings…

(3) As a rule the Apostolic Fathers do not quote the New Testament Scriptures by name…yet fragments of most of the Canonical Epistles are embedded in the writings of these fathers, whose language moreover is thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction[1].”

And, “The words of Scripture are inwrought into the texture of the books, and not parceled out into formal quotations[2].”

“(4) Lastly: there is not a single Evangelical quotation which can be safely referred to any apocryphal source[3].”

B.) Methods of Citation Utilized by Clement of Rome

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians contains many passages which parallel language and ideas found in Old and New Testament literature. Since this corpus was written prior to the most probable time of creation for I Clement (AD 90-95), literary dependence indicates Clement’s usage of preexisting material. Indeed, Clement appears to expect these citations to wield additional authority for his target audience; and he takes for granted that his readers will recognize the passages as belonging to some common set of literature approved by the Christian community. Overall, the First Epistle of Clement alludes to 205 passages from twenty-three books of the Old Testament, and 676 passages from twenty-five books of current New Testament Canon[4].

A few examples will serve to illustrate the manner in which Clement utilized scripture.

Consider how Clement handled the following passage, found in the second Chapter of the Book of Joshua:

In this passage from the Old Testament, we notice that Clement retells the story in his own words, paraphrasing and emphasizing portions as necessary to illustrate his points. Clement never violates the meaning or spirit of the original passage, but his rendition is very loose when compared to the original[5]. Some examples of Clement’s additions and omissions are herein provided to the reader, referenced by letter to the original texts:

a.) Clement reports that being seized, the spies would by the king’s command be “put to death.” While this is a fair assumption, it is never stated in the Book of Joshua.

b.) Clement merely paraphrases the “message of the king” to Rahab.

c.) Clement paraphrases Rahab’s response, and then adds that, “she pointed out to them the opposite road.” In the Joshua account, Rahab states that, “I don’t know which way they went.” This is a minor contradiction, although in keeping with the spirit of Rahab’s conversion to the cause of Israel.

d.) Clement greatly abbreviates Rahab’s speech in this instance, omitting a great deal of detail.

e.) Clement informs us of the sign of the scarlet thread in the course of his narration. The scarlet thread is included within the dialogue of the Israelite spies in the Joshua account. Once again, Clement paraphrases all of the conversational passages found within the Book of Joshua.

This side-by-side comparison illustrates that Clement never quoted any portion of the Book of Joshua verbatim, even though Joshua undoubtedly contained the source text for his discussion. This is indicative of Clement’s treatment for cited materials, and not in any way unusual or exceptional to his normal practice. And although this is an Old Testament passage, it conforms to Lightfoot’s four principles as discussed in section ‘A’ above.

The next passage that we will investigate comes from the New Testament, from the epistles of Paul, whom Clement had known personally. Clement specifically refers the Corinthians to the letter they had received from the Apostle Paul as he argues against the way that they had overthrown their church government:

47. Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.  What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?  Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties…

Having thus opened the discussion, he uses points which are all compatible with modern Christian Orthodoxy, but based upon loose citations drawn from a plethora of writings which have since been included in the New Testament Canon:

Notice that Clement’s command of these New Testament writings is sufficient to allow him to use the concepts conversationally, to season his speech with scripture-isms. He seldom cites a passage verbatim, but rather he retains the main thought behind each passage in order to combine many scriptural precepts into one Orthodox position on a given subject. A final example of Clement’s method is based upon citations from the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews. Since Clement is sometimes credited with involvement (with the Apostle Paul) in the creation of this book, lack of formal word-for-word quotation is particularly significant:

Once again, we see Clement’s willingness to transpose, compress and alter the text of Hebrews as needed. But in so doing, he never violates the spirit or meaning of the author of Hebrews. Of great interest is Clement’s addition – or completion – of the passage in Psalms (2:7-8) which was cited in Hebrews 1:5. Here we see Clement’s familiarity with both the Old and New Testament literature, and his ability to draw in additional scripture to illuminate his meaning.

Some have argued that the looseness of quotation indicates mere familiarity with some oral tradition. But the ability to interweave over eight-hundred Old and New Testament citations into one homogeneous document after the manner of Clement requires, I believe, a command of scripture only available through long hours of study involving written materials. Try this exercise yourself as proof of the foregoing proposition. In addition, it seems unlikely that Clement could expect the Corinthians to recognize such a vast array of allusions based upon mere oral tradition. His confidence in their ability to identify this profusion of references betrays his belief that they shared a common Christian literature.

C.) Citation of the Synoptic Gospels by Clement of Rome

Having now established Clement’s literary and exegetical tendencies, we will now examine Clement’s use of Synoptic material. We will begin with Clement’s discourse on proper Christian attitudes, which is built upon the model of the beatitudes given by Jesus and recorded in various Synoptic Gospels:

While we can see that most of this material came from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew (Chapters 5-7) and Luke (Chapter 6, vv 20-49), Clement again introduces material from Paul’s epistles (see “f”) which is not found in the Gospel accounts. This is exactly the same method that Clement used in Chapter 49 (see previous Section) when he included excerpts from John, Peter, and Ephesians while expounding upon the “love” Chapter found in I Corinthians (13:4-7). And it is reminiscent of his inclusion of Psalms 2:7-8 during his treatment of Hebrews Chapter 1 (found in I Clement, Chapter 36).

The argument has been made that Clement’s failure to cite the exact text of a given gospel account somehow “proves” that this passage follows an unknown, apocryphal gospel. Or alternatively that Clement here follows oral tradition without written support. But we have already demonstrated Clement’s propensity and preference for supporting his arguments with Scripture in just this manner, whether citing passages from the Old or the New Testament. Surely his Old Testament citations are not from “oral tradition” or “unknown” apocryphal works? Why then would we presume his New Testament passages to be so? And considering Clement’s purpose for writing this letter – to correct an upheaval in the Corinthian church which had recently overthrown its leadership – it makes far more sense for Clement to have included as many sources as possible.

Let us assume, as seems reasonable, that Clement’s purpose was to persuade the dissenting factions in the Corinthian church into restoring the original (and in Clement’s opinion legitimate) church government. Given that Christians of this period recognized Jesus, the Christ, as Divine and therefore their supreme authority; and given the recurrent theme in period literature that the Apostles of Christ were considered the primary repositories of Christ’s directives; and given the possibility that some churches might still show particular deference to the Apostle associated with the founding of their own local church; why would Clement limit his authority to a verbatim citation from only one such source? If Clement’s purpose was to strengthen the foundation for his argument, wouldn’t he rather proceed by distilling the precepts of the majority of these authorities, (all three Synoptics, Paul’s epistles, Peter’s epistles, etc.,) into one litany (catalogue) of instruction – thus demonstrating the unity and agreement of the various Apostles with respect to his position – and thereby removing the potential for some adversary to make a case for differences of doctrine between the various documents endorsed by the church? Wouldn’t the result be as we see – all authors placed into a list emphasizing their similarities? Indeed, such appears to be Clement’s method and objective.

But the question still remains – did Clement have Matthew in mind when he wrote this passage? Or was he drawing his material primarily from Luke? Other than “d” above, which is found only in Luke, (and “f” which comes from material outside of the Synoptics,) one could really argue for either case. But I am going to suggest that the answer goes deeper than that. Given that most of Clement’s allusions to Synoptic material are found in more than one gospel account, I propose that Clement’s intention was to utilize material that was supported by more than one gospel author. In other words, it is no accident that allusions to gospel passages in Clement are generally attributable to more than one account; rather, this is Clement’s way of assuring that his audience will accept his statements as authoritative regardless of their preferred gospel. This is a difficult statement to prove, but see if Clement’s choice of which gospel passage to reference does not seem, as we go through the rest of his texts, to be more than a coincidence in this regard:

Here we find Clement taking considerable liberties with his sources. “The words of Jesus our Lord” as presented by Clement in Chapter 46 are actually a conflation of two warnings given by Christ under somewhat different circumstances. The first set of citations (“a” and “b”) alludes to the rebuke of Christ upon revelation of the imminent treachery of Judas Iscariot at the Last Supper. This incident is contained in all three Synoptics, although phrase “b” is not found in the account of Luke. The second set of citations (“c”, “d” and “e”) is a more general warning to anyone who would cause one of Jesus’ “little ones” (or Jesus’ “elect”, according to Clement) to sin. This incident is also recounted within all three Synoptics. Clement combines these admonitions into a stern warning against those who had caused the disruption within the Corinthian church; thus using the very words of Jesus, as attested to by three gospel accounts which had each been endorsed by Jesus’ own disciples. What stronger case could be made to a Christian living at the end of the First Century AD?

Once again, it is difficult to assign these allusions to one specific gospel. Whereas citation “d” from Chapter 13 of Clement’s letter was attributable only to Luke’s Gospel, citation “b” from Chapter 46 is found in Matthew and Mark but not Luke. This is consistent with the notion that Clement is purposefully arguing from the consensus of gospel narratives, rather than from one gospel alone. And this demonstrates the likelihood that Clement was utilizing at least two gospel accounts for his letter, Matthew[6] (in Chapter 46) and Luke (in Chapter 13).

Other passages in Clement which parallel the Canonical Gospel accounts include:

But these add little to the conclusions that we have already drawn.  Lightfoot[7] remarks on the probability that Clement followed the Evangelists rather than Isaiah in Chapter 15; but given the effort that we have made to demonstrate Clement’s lack of concern with exactness of language, I am unwilling to pursue this line of reasoning at length.

D.) Conclusions:

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthian Church utilizes considerable material from text which has since been included within the Canon of New Testament Scripture. Due to the abundance of such allusions, it seems unreasonable to believe that Clement was merely invoking oral tradition. The ability to interweave so many hundreds of citations into one letter of this length seems to require access to written documents, as well as the years of intense study necessary to allow one to command such a plethora of quotations in a conversational manner – to have them at one’s fingertips, so to speak.

Clement seldom named his sources, but rather he assumed that his audience would both recognize his quotations, even if loosely worded, and accept the underlying authority associated with the cited text. He made free use of rephrasing Scripture so as to better address his concerns, and he frequently combined passages from both the Old and New Testament literature into a sort of comprehensive statement of the behavior and attitude required by service to Christ. In this way, Clement takes liberties with the wording and order of his cited text; transposing, rearranging, omitting and combining passages as necessary to facilitate his argument. This methodology is equally apparent in Clement’s use of Old and New Testament materials.

Clement includes several lengthy passages which parallel the Synoptic Gospels quite well, although he frequently introduces non-Synoptic Scripture into these discourses as well. These recitations tend to be based upon portions of the gospel which are contained by three (or at least two) of the Synoptic accounts. Clement’s proclivity to draw information from as many Scriptural sources as possible would be in keeping with his motive for writing to the Corinthians. Specifically, Clement would want to base his admonition upon the authority of Christ, as specified by Christ’s own Apostles. The more agreement which Clement could show between the writings endorsed by the various Apostles, the stronger his case would be. This was especially true in dealing with a congregation which had, in Clement’s view, rebelled against their rightful church authority.

No single account exists which would account for all Clement’s allusions to passages within the Synoptic gospels. The phrase “As ye give, so shall it be given unto you” (citation “d” from Chapter 13) may only be found within the Gospel of Luke; whereas “It were good for him if he had not been born” (citation “b” from Chapter 46) may be found in Matthew or Mark, but not Luke. For this reason, we must conclude that a minimum of two gospels, Matthew and Luke, were within Clement’s possession when he wrote his letter in 95 AD. It seems likely that Clement, as a follower of S. Peter, was familiar with the Gospel of Mark as well. All early testimony agrees that Mark wrote his gospel to record the account given by S. Peter. But whether two synoptic gospels or three, Clement was familiar with accounts of eyewitness testimony concerning Christ.

Finally, it is evident from Clement’s use of these materials, and from his invocation of the names of S. Peter (I Clem. 5) and S. Paul (I Clem. 5 & 47), that Clement was seeking to introduce these citations into his arguments to provide a universally recognized authority in support of his premises. In this way, it was not Clement who was admonishing the Corinthians, but their own founding Apostle, Paul. Or alternatively Peter, arguably the leader of Jesus’ twelve Apostles, was providing the needed correction with his own reminiscence of Christ’s words. Or the three Synoptic Gospel accounts, at the time the sole repository of information concerning the earthly tenure of Christ, could be combined to show the Corinthians the true path of Christ. But in any case, Clement’s letter would speak with the voice of Jesus’ own Apostles, rather than one who was a mere contemporary of the church leadership already deposed at Corinth.

This deference to the authority of the documents which had been endorsed by the Apostles; this perception by Clement that these documents were universally accepted as such; and Clement’s confidence that the Corinthians would listen to this New Testament Scripture, even if they would not listen to their own leadership or the bishop of the church at Rome – these are the treasures bequeathed by Clement to the modern church. And any who in modern times would try to recast the early history of the church must first explain why men such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp – men who were personal disciples to Jesus’ own Apostles – Why would these men rely upon the gospel accounts as authoritative if they were not the authentic records claimed by universal testimony of the early church? Such is the consistency and merit of the succession of the true message of Christ – from Jesus, through his Apostles, to their Disciples, to the Church.

NOTICES:

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of International Bible Society.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of International Bible Society.

The Translations for I Clement are either those of:

1.) James Donaldson:

Works by this author are in the public domain in countries where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or less.

Some or all works by this author are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before January 1, 1923. They may be copyrighted outside the U.S. (see Help:Public domain). However, works published before 1923 may be in the public domain in countries where they would ordinarily be copyrighted (due to the term of 70 years [or less] after the author’s death having not yet expired) but whose legislature has waived copyright by accepting the rule of the shorter term.

Or,

2.) Joseph Barber Lightfoot:

Published before January 1, 1923, Works by this author are in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations or editions published later may be copyrighted. Posthumous works may be copyrighted based on how long they have been published in certain countries and areas.

[2] Brook Foss Westcott, D.D.,  A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Fifth Edition, Chapter I, The Age of the Apostolic Fathers, Section II, p. 49

[3] J. B. Lightfoot, ibid.

[4] I obtained this count by merely adding entries from the Index of References found within Donald Alfred Hagner’s The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, Leiden, E.J Brill, 1973. Certain passages in Clement reference themes that occur more than once in Scripture. While Hagner argues that some of these references could be from lost, extra-canonical sources, or merely oral tradition, the vast array of scriptural references employed leads to the inescapable conclusion that Clement was using a recognized corpus of Christian literature to support his arguments. Most of these documents must have been considered as “Scripture” either due to their inclusion in the Hebrew Holy Writ, which Jesus used as an authority; or conversely the writings were considered to have been authored or endorsed by Apostles, those entrusted by Christ with ensuring the truth for their followers to come.

[5] A rigorous comparison of the Hebrew and Septuagint Greek texts to the texts of various manuscripts of I Clement would be an interesting study. But the flagrant differences in Clement’s version render such an exercise unnecessary. The changes are obviously not due merely to transcription or translation.

[6] Either Matthew or Mark would be sufficient to account for citation “b” in Chapter 46, but much of the material found in Chapter 13 is not found in Mark. So the citations thus far could in theory be provided by a combination of Matthew and Luke, without resorting to the Gospel of Mark.

[7] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part One, Volume 2, footnote (12.) on page 55.

Useful Links:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

http://www.textexcavation.com/measureformeasure.html

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html#anon