The Lord's Prayer; James Tissot

Work is progressing on the rewrite – replacing all the citations from copyrighted translations with older translations which are no longer subject to copyrights. I am also taking the opportunity to clarify certain sections, add footnotes containing material I either didn’t know how to work in previously or found during later research. I am currently finishing Chapter IV, so an end of summer time frame for completion seems reasonable. I will be in France on business from 21 -30 June, but should be hard at it again starting in July.

Here is a short excerpt from rewritten Chapter III:

CHAPTER III

The Price of First Century Christianity

…he also subdued Judaea, and made a prisoner of Aristobulus the king. Some cities he built up, others he set free, chastising their tyrants.

-Plutarch, Life of Pompey

Once conquered by Roman General Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus, (Pompey the Great,) in 63 BC, Judea was not destined to regain its independence until the twentieth century AD. The Romans granted some autonomy to local authorities within the empire, but client-Kings and Governors alike ultimately answered to Caesar. Roman tolerance of each various culture thus determined the subject race’s quality of life, freedom, and even their right to exist. The following narrative recounts how difficult life could be for a conquered people whose ways were not approved by Imperial Rome:

Thus Scipio took Carthage; and he sent to the senate the following message: “Carthage is taken. What are our orders now?” When these words had been read, they took counsel as to what should be done. Cato expressed the opinion that they ought to raze the city and blot out the Carthaginians, whereas Scipio Nasica still advised sparing the Carthaginians. And thereupon the senate became involved in a great dispute and contention, until some one declared that for the Romans’ own sake, if for no other reason, it must be considered necessary to spare them. With this nation for antagonists they would be sure to practise valour instead of turning aside to pleasures and luxury; whereas, if those who were able to compel them to practise warlike pursuits should be removed  from the scene, they might deteriorate from want of practice, through a lack of worthy competitors. As a result of the discussion all became unanimous in favour of destroying Carthage, since they felt sure that its inhabitants would never remain entirely at peace. The whole city was therefore utterly blotted out of existence, and it was decreed that for any person to settle upon its site should be an accursed act. The majority of the men captured were thrown into prison and there perished, and some few were sold. But the very foremost men together with the hostages and Hasdrubal and Bithias spent their lives in different parts of Italy in honourable confinement. Scipio secured both glory and honour and was called Africanus, not after his grandfather, but because of his own achievements.

-Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Roman History, Book XXI, 30

Jesus, Jesus’ followers, and the earliest Christians were frequently considered a Jewish sect by their Roman masters, much as the Essenes or the Pharisees. Due to a long tradition of friendly relations between the various leaders of Judea and Rome, the Jews had been granted special privilege to practice Judaism under Roman rule[i]. But even though Rome tried not to interfere with the practice of harmless local customs, she would ruthlessly stamp out any movement which threatened the peace or stability of the empire. Consider this account of Roman General Titus Didius in 98 BC:

…Didius, with the concurrence of the ten legates who were still present, resolved to destroy them. Accordingly, he told their principal men that he would allot the land of Colenda to them because they were poor. Finding them very much pleased with this offer, he told them to communicate it to their people, and to come with their wives and children to the parceling out of the land. When they had done so he ordered his soldiers to vacate their camp, and these people, whom he wanted to ensnare, to go inside, so that he might make a list of their names, the men on one register and the women and children on another, in order to know how much land should be set apart for them. When they had gone inside the ditch and palisade, Didius surrounded them with his army and killed them all, and for this he was honored with a triumph.

-Appian of Alexandria, The Spanish Wars, 100

Or the fate of the followers of the legendary Spartacus, who led slaves against Rome in the third servile war:

A large number of his men fled from the battle-field to the mountains and Crassus followed them thither. They divided themselves in four parts, and continued to fight until they all perished except 6000, who were captured and crucified along the whole road from Capua to Rome.

-Appian, The Civil Wars, Book I, XIV, 120

Rome sometimes found ideas threatening as well. There was no Roman “Bill of Rights” guarantying free speech, or freedom of religion. Roman conservatives rather adhered to Quintus Ennius’ tenet:

Moribus antiquis stat res Romana virisque. – “The Roman State stands on its ancient customs and men.”

Obviously the morals of different cultures do not always agree. And the legality of Judaism under Roman law did not guarantee its compatibility with Roman society. The Hebrew and Christian monotheistic belief systems were hardly in keeping with a polytheistic world-view which believed that gladiatorial contests, frequently to the death, were a method of keeping the citizenry strong and accustomed to violent death[ii]. The Romans, for their part, thought that the exclusivity of monotheistic dogma hindered its adherents’ loyalty to the empire[iii]. Greco-Roman culture even considered circumcision to be a barbaric practice, a ritual mutilation requiring surgical reversal[iv].

Due to these underlying incompatibilities, the Roman records from this period indicate that various regimes fluctuated in practice between disapproval of Judeo-Christian beliefs to armed reprisal against the practitioners of Judaism and Christianity.  Let us examine the policies of first century Rome toward the Christians and the Jews.

Ancient Roman historians attest that Caesar Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome to prevent them from polluting Roman culture. Here, accounts from three different Roman authors document the degree of Roman tolerance towards Judaism during the time when Jesus of Nazareth taught in Judea and Galilee[v]:

As the Jews flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he [Tiberius] banished most of them.

-Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book LVII, 18.5 [written around 220 AD]

There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites.

-Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book II, 85 [written around 110 AD]

He [Tiberius] abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

-Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Tiberius 36 [written 121 AD]

This Roman policy was adopted in 19 AD, nine years before Jesus’ visit to Nain. The distinguished Roman Senator Tacitus [56-117 AD] echoes the prevailing Roman sentiment of his day when he calls the deaths of four thousand Jewish men “a cheap sacrifice.” In the same way, he judges the practice of Judaism “impious” by Roman standards. Tiberius’ edict was the official Roman position throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry. Around the time that Jesus endured a Roman crucifixion for his beliefs, Tiberius rescinded the policy[vi], (31 or 32 AD.)  Tacitus reports that Tiberius was 78 years old when he was smothered to death by Naevius Sutorius Macro, Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, on the 15^th of March, 37 AD[vii]… (This was an example of Roman policy towards Jews during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. More examples of Roman policies towards Christians and Jews are included in Chapter III).

[ii] Pliny II, Panegyricus 33; Suetonius, Tiberius, 7;Suetonius, Claudius, 21.4-6  & 34; Theophilus of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolycus,  Book III, Chapter xv; Athenagoras the Athenian, A Plea for the Christians XXXV; Tatian the Assyrian, Address of Tatian to the Greeks XXIII

[iii] Cicero, Pro Flacco 67-69; Tacitus XV, 44; Pliny II, Letters, Book X, xcvi & xcvii

[iv] I Maccabees I, 14-15; Celsus, On the Practice of Medicine VII, 25

[v] See also Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, §5

[vi] Philo of Alexandria, on the Embassy to Gaius, XXIV; Emil Shürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Second Division, Volume II, p. 235 – 236

[vii] Tacitus, Annals, VI, § 50

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.

In ancient Rome, refusal to worship the state sponsored gods was considered ‘atheism’. The crime of atheism was punishable by death. Certain religions were granted various degrees of tolerance at divers times. But the underlying Roman attitude towards such ‘superstitions’ was one of disdain. And one who practiced ‘impious’ rites was considered less than a true Roman.

In western Christian society we are accustomed to the concepts of human rights and guaranteed liberties. This modern bias makes it difficult for us to relate to cultures which not only did not protect freedom of speech or religion, but saw nonconformity in these areas as undesirable – disloyalty to the established order, as it were. For this reason, we tend to downplay the idea that the Romans could have really executed ‘vast multitudes’ of early Christians merely for an observance of custom. Progressive historians such as Gibbon have added to the notion that the tales of martyrdom surely must have been overstated. How could ‘civilized’ Romans, responsible for much of our law and cultural institutions, have really massacred tens or hundreds of thousands of innocents, over what amounts to a difference of opinion?

Rather than debate the inherent capacity of man for good or evil, regaling in the legacies of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or those up and coming tyrants, Ahmadinejad for instance, I thought I would let the Romans tell the story in their own words. The Christian testimony to these atrocities is far more vivid and comprehensive of course, but how much more compelling to let the culprit, rather than the victim, speak of the crime?

Tiberius, pertaining to the Jews during Christ’s lifetime [19 AD]:

As the Jews flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he [Tiberius] banished most of them.

-Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book LVII, 18.5 [written around 220 AD]

There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites.

-Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals, Book II, 85 [written around 110 AD]

He [Tiberius] abolished foreign cults, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious vestments and all their paraphernalia. Those of the Jews who were of military age he assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art.

-Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Tiberius 36 [written 121 AD]

Claudius, when Christianity was still considered to be a sect of Judaism and therefore a ‘legal’ Roman religion [around 50 AD]. ‘Chrestus’ was a common Græco-Roman variant of ‘Christos’ or ‘Christ’:

¹After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.

²There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them…

-Acts 18:1, 2 (NIV) [written around 62 AD]

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

-Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4 [written 121 AD]

Nero, upon recognition in 64 AD of Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, non-sanctioned by the Roman state, and therefore punishable by death:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

-Tacitus, Annals, XV, 44 [written around 110 AD]

He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments he erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought; and these he put up at his own cost. He had also planned to extend the walls as far as Ostia and to bring the sea from there to Rome by a canal…

… Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

-Suetonius, Nero, 16 [written 121 AD]

After Nero was overthrown in 68 AD, a period of civil unrest followed that claimed the lives of three of his successors within eighteen months[i]. Then in December of 69 AD, Vespasian’s general Antonius Primus defeated Aulus Vitellius’ forces for possession of Rome[ii], thus fulfilling the prophecy of Joseph and establishing the Flavian dynasty. Joseph was given his freedom, an apartment in Vespasian’s own house in Rome, an Imperial pension, and Roman citizenship in recognition of his support[iii]. Adopting his benefactor’s family name, Flavius Josephus proceeded under Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian to write the various histories which have provided us so much source material.

Vespasian, as Emperor, immediately placed his son Titus in command of the War in Judea. When Jerusalem was razed in 70 AD, Vespasian enacted the Fiscus Judaicus, a tax upon Jews which went to support the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus, as punishment to the Jewish People for their rebellion[iv].

Nero’s policy mandating death for those who practiced Christianity was apparently still in effect throughout the reign of Vespasian. There is no evidence that Nero’s anti-Christian decrees were revoked, or that Christianity was ever recognized as an approved religion. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that Vespasian could rescind the anti-Christian policies in the immediate aftermath of the Judean War, when Roman sentiment against all things Judean still ran high[v].

Titus succeeded upon Vespasian’s death in 79 AD. He apparently trusted his father’s policies concerning Christians and Jews throughout his two years of supremacy, as there is no record of any deviation in this regard.

Titus Flavius Domitianus (Domitian) became Emperor when his older brother passed away in 81 AD. Domitian actively hunted Christians early in his reign[vi]; executed many who “drifted into Jewish ways” even toward the end of his reign, and vigorously enforced the Fiscus Judaicus from 81-96 AD. Conversion to Christianity was frequently described by Romans as ‘drifting into Jewish ways’, since Christianity was seen as an offshoot of Judaism. Remember that Judaism was legal although subject to the Fiscus Judaicus, Christianity was punishable by death:

And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla[1], who was also a relative of the emperor’s. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.

-Dio, Roman History, LXVII, 14 [written around 220 AD]

Domitian’s agents collected the tax on Jews with a peculiar lack of mercy; and took proceedings not only against those who kept their Jewish origins a secret in order to avoid the tax, but against those who lived as Jews without professing Judaism. As a boy, I remember once attending a crowded Court where the imperial agent had a ninety-year-old man inspected to establish whether or not he had been circumcised.

- Suetonius, Domitian, 12 [written 121 AD]

When Domitian was assassinated, Marcus Cocceius Nerva (Nerva) finally granted some relief to Christians and Jews:

Nerva also released all who were on trial for maiestas and restored the exiles; moreover, he put to death all the slaves and the freedmen who had conspired against their masters and allowed that class of persons to lodge no complaint whatever against their masters; and no persons were permitted to accuse anybody of maiestas or of adopting the Jewish mode of life.

Dio, Roman History LXVIII, i, 2 [written around 220 AD]

Notice that Nerva did not repeal the Fiscus Judaicus, which was still in effect when Tertullian and Origen wrote in the early Third Century[vii]. Neither did he grant legal status to Christianity. Nor did he condone proselytization by Christians or Jews. He merely ended the prosecution of these “crimes” by preventing accusations. Whether he intended an eventual long term policy change we will never know. Due to his age, Nerva’s reign was only to last one year, four months, and nine days[viii]. Shortly after adopting Marcus Ulpius Traianus (Trajan) as his heir, Nerva passed away.

By the time of Trajan (98-117 AD) it was accepted policy that practicing Christians were to be executed, and Jews were to be taxed. There is no reason to infer that some variant of these basic policies were not in effect from the times of Nero and Vespasian respectively until the time of Trajan. The only question is how vigorously offenders were to be sought out.

Gaius Plinius Luci filius Caecilius Secundus, or Pliny the younger, was a Roman statesman, writer, and personal friend of the Emperor Trajan who reigned from 98-117 AD. Appointed legatus propraetore consulari potestate of the province Bithynia around 111 AD[ix], Pliny exchanged a series of letters with the Emperor discussing the problems he faced as Governor. This unique correspondence provides an insightful look into the inner workings and attitudes of Roman administrations during the period immediately preceding 110-115 A.D. Pliny and Trajan agree in Epistles XCVI & XCVII that Christians who denied Christ and worshipped Roman Gods were to obtain a full pardon – those who remained committed to Christ were to be executed:

Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan:

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ—none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan to Pliny the Younger:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

-The Letters of Pliny, Book X (The Correspondence of Pliny with Trajan,) XCVI & XCVII

It seems unlikely that recantation would have saved a Christian during the reign of Nero, but the policy approved by Pliny and Trajan probably developed gradually during the reigns of Vespasian through Nerva. This policy was certainly still in effect ninety years later (198-204 A.D.) when the Roman jurist Tertullian, having converted to Christianity, presented his famous defense[x] to the Romans:

And then, too, you do not in that case deal with us in the ordinary way of judicial proceedings against offenders; for, in the case of others denying, you apply the torture to make them confess—Christians alone you torture, to make them deny; whereas, if we were guilty of any crime, we should be sure to deny it, and you with your tortures would force us to confession.

-Tertullian, Apology, II

The reign of Hadrian (117-138 AD) seems relatively free from such charges. It is unclear whether Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, was martyred during the end of Hadrian’s reign, or the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius. And there may have been unrecorded instances based upon long standing Imperial policy. But Melito and Justin both reference the following rescript from Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, dated around 125 AD, as evidence of this Emperor’s leniency towards Christians:

I have received the letter addressed to me by your predecessor Serenius Granianus, a most illustrious man; and this communication I am unwilling to pass over in silence, lest innocent persons be disturbed, and occasion be given to the informers for practising villany. Accordingly, if the inhabitants of your province will so far sustain this petition of theirs as to accuse the Christians in some court of law, I do not prohibit them from doing so. But I will not suffer them to make use of mere entreaties and outcries. For it is far more just, if any one desires to make an accusation, that you give judgment upon it. If, therefore, any one makes the accusation, and furnishes proof that the said men do anything contrary to the laws, you shall adjudge punishments in proportion to the offences. And this, by Hercules, you shall give special heed to, that if any man shall, through mere calumny, bring an accusation against any of these persons, you shall award to him more severe punishments in proportion to his wickedness.” – Attached to Justin’s Apology to Antoninus Pius (written around 140 AD).

By the time of Marcus Aurelius’ reign, Christians were renowned throughout the Roman Empire for their disdain of torture and death. And the knowledge was not confined to the lower echelons of society. Marcus Aurelius, himself, was aware of the problem. Following the Stoic influence of Epictetus[xi], the Roman Emperor echoed the sentiments of Pliny and Trajan when he wrote:

What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man’s own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, XI, 3 (Translation by George Long)

Or as Lucian of Samosata, a popular satirist to the Greco-Roman world, so eloquently put it [written around 169 AD]:

You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.

-Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, Paragraph 13, (Translated by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler)

Written during the reign of Lucius Septimius Severus around 197 AD, Tertullian makes our closing argument:

In that case, you say, why do you complain of our persecutions? You ought rather to be grateful to us for giving you the sufferings you want. Well, it is quite true that it is our desire to suffer, but it is in the way that the soldier longs for war. No one indeed suffers willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and danger.  Yet the man who objected to the conflict, both fights with all his strength, and when victorious, he rejoices in the battle, because he reaps from it glory and spoil. It is our battle to be summoned to your tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may battle for the truth. But the day is won when the object of the struggle is gained.  This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes, when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued. Call us, if you like, Sarmenticii and Semaxii, because, bound to a half-axle stake, we are burned in a circle-heap of fagots. This is the attitude in which we conquer, it is our victory-robe, it is for us a sort of triumphal car. Naturally enough, therefore, we do not please the vanquished; on account of this, indeed, we are counted a desperate, reckless race. But the very desperation and recklessness you object to in us, among yourselves lift high the standard of virtue in the cause of glory and of fame… But go zealously on, good presidents, you will stand higher with the people if you sacrifice the Christians at their wish, kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent. Therefore God suffers that we thus suffer; for but very lately, in condemning a Christian woman to the leno rather than to the leo you made confession that a taint on our purity is considered among us something more terrible than any punishment and any death. Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us.  The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed. Many of your writers exhort to the courageous bearing of pain and death, as Cicero in the Tusculans, as Seneca in his Chances, as Diogenes, Pyrrhus, Callinicus; and yet their words do not find so many disciples as Christians do, teachers not by words, but by their deeds. That very obstinacy you rail against is the preceptress. For who that contemplates it, is not excited to inquire what is at the bottom of it? who, after inquiry, does not embrace our doctrines? and when he has embraced them, desires not to suffer that he may become partaker of the fulness of God’s grace, that he may obtain from God complete forgiveness, by giving in exchange his blood? For that secures the remission of all offences. On this account it is that we return thanks on the very spot for your sentences. As the divine and human are ever opposed to each other, when we are condemned by you, we are acquitted by the Highest.

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, Apology, Chapter L

[ii] Dio, Roman History, LXV, 20-22; Tacitus, Histories III, 84-85; IV, 1; Josephus, Wars IV, ix, 2; xi, 4; Suetonius, Vitellius XVII-XVIII

[iii] Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus 76

[iv] Josephus, Wars VII, vi, 6; Dio, Roman History LXVI, vii, 2; Appian, The Syrian Wars 50; Origen, Epistle to Africanus 14; Tertullian, Apology XVIII

[v] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, xii; Josephus, Wars VII, iii, 1; J.B Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Second Edition (Reprint), Part Two, Ignatius & Polycarp, Volume 1, Ignatius Chapter 1, Ignatius the Martyr, pp 15-16,  (Hilary of Poitiers on Vespasian)

[vi] Tertullian, Apology, V

[vii] Origen, Epistle to Africanus 14; Tertullian, Apology XVIII

[viii] Dio, Roman History LXVIII, iv, 2

[ix] C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi Epistulae Ad Traianum Imperatorem Cum Eiusdem Responsis, Edited, With Notes and Introductory Essays by E.G. Hardy, M.A., London, Macmillan and Co., 1889, Introductary Biography of Pliny, page 24; Pliny, Letters, Books I-VII, Translated by Betty Radice,  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1969, Introduction, page xii

[x] See also Tertullian, Ad Nationes, Book I, ii

[xi] Epictetus (Arrian), Discourses, IV, 7.6

Just thought I would post some end of 2009 updates:

I will address the Shreveport, LA chapter of Reasons to Believe on the 3rd Monday of January, 2010 on the subject ‘The Testimony of the Witnesses’, an investigation into the credibility of the Christian Holy Writ. We will consider the weight of the earliest written testimony in regards to the claim of resurrection of Christ. And we will examine how writers such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Elaine Pagels can proceed from the the early Christian literature and arrive at results in diametric opposition to the views of both its authors and its recipients.

Michelangelo - Fresco From The Sistine Chapel

I posted the following on Facebook in response to various discussions. It is not complete, but holds the germ of a theme upon which I would like to expand  in the future, God willing:

People think that because we live in a free society, we may practice Christianity, when actually the converse is true. Because we practice Christianity we live in a free society.

Ultimately we will each act according to our most deeply held convictions. Likewise, a society will be shaped by the ideology of its members. In predominately Hindu society, for instance, there will be little compassion for the downtrodden – after all, they are merely reaping the fruits of their actions in a previous life. In the Islamic world, there exists little tolerance for opposing viewpoints – possession of a Bible is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, for instance; even though that nation is generally considered to be a rational, modern society. Likewise Marxism is a jealous god, accepting no rivals.

“But I believe in nothing,” one might say. “I have a secular viewpoint, bound by no primitive superstition.” Even so, this person has a core ideology. After all, this person believes in and wants good things for their self. And with no outside constraint, ethics for each ‘secular’ person generally devolves into ‘what’s good for me’. This leads to a materialistic, self centered society; such as we see developing in the United States as we renounce our Christian heritage, or as we saw in the Roman world after they left Stoicism.

All of the common principles of freedom that we have come to cherish – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. were birthed in western Christian society. The rest of the world not only does not practice these ‘freedoms’, they do not see the advantage in practicing these freedoms. They are ‘foolishness’ to the non-Christian world.

We may judge the viability of a belief system by the merits of the society it produces. And before we run headlong to accept an ‘enlightened’ diverse viewpoint, we should examine the societies where it has been established to see where it leads – to see the conclusion of its adoption. Likewise, we should have a BETTER society in clear view before we renounce a way of life that has led us to freedom, prosperity and world hegemony.

November 24 at 6:19am ·

Here is an open letter from Bishop Tobin to Congressman Kennedy which I found quite interesting: Dear Congressman Kennedy

I will be making submittals to major publishers again in January. I have been somewhat remiss and have not contacted anyone in about 9 months. Depending upon which statistics program referenced, this website generated between 22,830 – 28,608 hits during the month of November from 1974 sites and 984 unique visitors. And this for a one year old site whose readership spreads solely through word of mouth. Many thanks to my readers. The increasing readership of the website should at some point provide additional inducement to prospective publishers. I am very interested in IVP Academic, and would be much obliged to anyone capable of a positive referral.

I am also aware that some of the footnote links are not functional. Its on my ‘to do’ list. You can still scroll manually to find the reference.

Best Wishes to all for 2010,

John Takach

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.

Hi everyone!
I’m in something of a quandary, and I’m asking my readers if they can help. As you know, I am seeking publication for my manuscript, How to Live Forever. As far as I can tell, this is the first COMPREHENSIVE treatment of the Resurrection of Christ based upon historical data. With all of the Discovery and History Channel specials undermining the evidence in favor of the Resurrection, with the conspicuous presence of such anti-Resurrection authors as Crossan, Ehrmann, and Pagel in modern literature, it certainly seems right that someone actually reveal the ancient record in it’s entirety. And that’s what How to Live Forever is about – letting the evidence determine the verdict.

But I am in that classic dilemma: I have never before published in this field, so I have no resume. I have very few contacts among authors and publishers, and have cold contacted fifty-eight publishers thus far, without finding a place for the book. Due to the number of permissions for various citations and translations which will be required, self-publishing seems out of the question – and I would really like to reach a nation-wide audience from the beginning if at all possible.

So here is the request:

If you, my readers, find some merit in these various posts, (which I believe individually fail to capture the elegance of the completed argument, ) and if you have some connection to someone in the publishing business, then I would appreciate a referral. Lead them to the site, let them look at the material, and let’s see if we can’t get this thing published and clear up the record concerning the Resurrection.

Thanking you for your assistance in this regard, I remain

Yours Very Truly,

John Takach

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

(An Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

Part II

(iii.) The Eyewitness accounts:

With the availability of three eyewitness reports, we have the opportunity to compare the compatibility of the testimony for ourselves. From this point onward it will be much easier to evaluate the testimony of the resurrection accounts, for we have already proven the identity of each author. We have so proven by demonstrating the early acceptance of the four Canonical Gospels through the use of quotations by the earliest church fathers, men who were themselves trained and appointed by Jesus’ disciples. We have shown that these men, and their audience, accepted quotations from the Gospels as a final authority – the words of their Lord as preserved through His messengers. And this acceptance apparently pervaded the Christian world, throughout Rome, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece at the very least.

The Raising of Jairus' Daughter - Schnorr von Carolsfield

In addition, we have recovered the testimony of Jesus’ Apostles regarding the origins of the four Gospels as preserved through the succession of elders in Rome, Alexandria, and Asia Minor. We have shown that other such successions probably existed in North Africa, Greece, Syria, and Palestine. And we have found no evidence of any conflicting testimony of apostolic origin concerning the Gospels. Rather, we have observed the confident perception of Justin, Aristides, Irenaeus, Lucian, and others that all Christians were using the same Gospels.

So we are now armed with the knowledge that Matthew, Jesus’ disciple and eyewitness wrote the Gospel of Matthew with an Hebrew audience in mind. Mark was not an eyewitness, but rather the interpreter[a] for Jesus’ Apostle Peter who was. Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark at the request of Peter’s followers, so that they might have a record of the testimony of Peter as regards the risen Christ.  Luke was not an eyewitness, but states in his introduction that his record was written to provide a more complete account of events surrounding Jesus’ life than previous accounts, presumably Matthew’s and Mark’s. Luke was liaison between the church elders at Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul during the latter’s two year imprisonment at Caesarea, (see discussion pp 78-83). During that time, Luke would have had ample opportunity to interview the surviving Apostles as well as Jesus’ family. To make good his claim to have written a more complete account, Luke must have had access to eyewitness testimony of comparable status to the Apostles Matthew and Peter, the witnesses for the accounts Luke intended to complete.

Likewise we have shown that each of these men risked their lives for their testimony. From the Jewish persecutions which immediately followed the crucifixion, through the persecutions under Herod Agrippa I, to the Roman anti-Christian policies which originated with Nero, Christians died for their testimony every step of the way. If we can accept perseverance unto death as evidence of sincere testimony, we must believe that each of these accounts was compiled and sworn to by men who believed in their message.

If you are not convinced at this point that the four Gospels constitute sincere, eyewitness testimony of the life of Christ, then there is no reason to read further. We have spent considerable effort validating these records because they contain the only existing observations of resurrection that may be proven accurate. The rest of our investigation rests upon the evidence of these documents. If you skimmed over the ancient testimony, or the accompanying arguments because of the tedious nature of the subject matter, then I highly encourage you to reread the proofs of this Chapter, as well as Chapter IV. The effort required to understand your own beliefs will pay large dividends when you are able to determine what you stand for, and what the meaning of your life is.

For those who recognize the eyewitness quality of the data, here is the account of the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter. The text is being presented in parallel columns for easy comparison:

The first thing we notice is that Matthew’s account contains less detail than Luke’s or Mark’s. Mark and Luke identify Matthew’s ruler as Jairus, a ruler of the local Synagogue. If Matthew was written first, and to the Hebrews, as unanimously averred by ancient testimony, then Matthew may well have been protecting Jairus from Jewish persecution by preserving his anonymity. This would be reminiscent of the Pharisee Nicodemus’ visit to Jesus – nocturnal and secret to avoid repercussions from the religious elite[1]. By the time Mark and Luke wrote, the need for such secrecy may have passed. A noticeable difference is that the ruler’s daughter had already died according to Matthew, whereas Luke and Mark assert that she was dying. This is a possible discrepancy that we will consider as we continue. Luke adds that she was Jairus’ only daughter, and twelve years of age.

All three accounts report the encounter with the woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years. The interruption serves as a literary device for Luke and Mark. At the end of this conversation Jesus receives an update on the condition of Jairus’ daughter. There is really no reason for Matthew to place this episode in the middle of the story of Jairus. Unless it just happened that way.

After the miraculous healing, Mark and Luke report that Jesus received news of the daughter’s death. Mark reports that “some men” came from the house of Jairus, Luke states that “someone” from the house of Jairus delivered the message. Since it is reasonable to assume that one of the men told the news, I see no reason to preclude the possibility that several men came in Luke’s account as well. Here also is an answer to Matthew’s statement that the girl had already died. Since Matthew spent very little time on the incident compared to Mark and Luke, he did not provide a blow by blow analysis of the conversations. For his purposes, it was enough to say that the girl was dead before Jesus’ arrival. I suppose that these differences in presentation could be construed as contradiction, or disagreement. But I’ll bet the average District Attorney would be pretty satisfied with his case against a murderer if his three witnesses agreed this well.

Matthew speaks of flute players and a noisy crowd within the house of Jairus. Mark tells that Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. Luke says all the people were wailing and mourning for her. These statements are just three different way of describing the mourners required by Jewish law[b].  Once the daughter died, these mourners[2] would show respect and sorrow according to Eastern custom. Jewish law required that the corpse be buried on the very day of demise[3], so the mourners would arrive soon after death. Likewise it was forbidden to mourn or begin any funeral preparations until death had been confirmed[4].

The presence of mourners within Jairus’ house indicates that the girl had already been certified as deceased. Two sets of messengers were probably sent at the time of death by Jairus’ family; one to fetch mourners and begin funeral preparations, and the other to inform Jairus of his daughter’s death. Jesus tells the mourners in each version to be quiet and allow him some working room, stating that the girl ‘is not dead but asleep’. This does not mean that Jesus had detected a pulse. Rather, this is a common usage among those who believe that the dead may rise again[5]. The mourners make fun of Jesus. Death has already been pronounced. Any parent who has had to explain the death of a beloved pet to their child understands the certainty involved. She’s not coming back.

Then Jesus takes her by the hand, and speaks to her lifeless body – and she gets up! Standing up, walking around, and eating is definitive proof of life. And she was alive after the Jewish authorities had publicly declared her death. So what are the possibilities? Could she have merely been comatose?  As we observed at Nain, this doesn’t really solve any difficulties. Are we to presume that Jesus was some magnificent physician who could discern the difference between a deep coma and death; a difference unperceivable to all others? Why would Jesus tell the father to have faith before he even saw the girl’s body? A comatose victim returning to normalcy at Jesus’ word is hardly less miraculous than a dead girl returning to life under the same conditions.

Could the whole thing have been a hoax? Only the girl’s parents, and the Apostles Peter, James, and John were allowed to witness the actual resurrection event. Would Peter and James have gone to their deaths, and would John have risked death, to protect the elaborate charade of a false prophet, long since executed? The tone of their various writings certainly seems sincere, and their own disciples were convinced of these Apostles’ pure intent. These three were Jesus’ closest associates according to all testimony, (including Matthew’s and Luke’s.) So it doesn’t seem likely that they would be unaware of the true events.

No, these disciples stood for what they believed to be true their entire lives, and then two of them died for those beliefs. This dedication to the truth was part of the inspiration that they provided to their own disciples, without which the Christian church would have died in infancy. If the testimony were of commonplace events, no one would question the written accounts. Because the testimony is of human resurrection, we wonder whether we have missed some alternative explanation. But the truth, if we allow ourselves to be guided by the evidence, is that something miraculous happened with Jairus’ daughter. Other explanations are merely reflections of our inability to accept an observation beyond our own experience.

Finally, we should make certain that the observations were reported to us in pristine condition. Considering the case for each account, we must find:

(1)  a. The reporter either personally witnessed the event or;

b. The reporter personally and exhaustively interviewed all available eyewitnesses and accurately reported a compilation of their testimony, or;

c. both a. and b. above.

(2)  Nether the reporter, nor his eyewitnesses, are embellishing the account, (i.e. lying,) for some unknown motive.

(3)  Neither the reporter, nor his eyewitnesses are mistaken in their understanding of   events.

Matthew would have personally heard the announcement of the daughter’s death, and later seen the evidence of her resurrection. So Matthew satisfies premise (1) a.; with the exception that he was not present when Jesus’ performed the resurrection. He must have been supplied with the details of Jesus’ method by those present. But as far as details are concerned, Matthew’s account is much abbreviated compared to the other two. There is no reason to suspect that Matthew, who gave up a lucrative position as a Roman tax collector[6] to follow Jesus, and who later risked his life to remain in the Christian movement, would embellish the account. So premise (2) is satisfied. Matthew’s account is pretty cut and dry, so there’s really no room for him to have misinterpreted anything. He heard the declaration of the girl’s death. Later she lived. Witnesses who were present filled in the details of how it happened. So premise (3) looks good as well.

Mark heard the story directly from Peter, who was an eyewitness. So Mark satisfies (1) b. Mark was apparently working with Peter at the risk of his own life, so he wrote a sincere account, proving premise (2). Peter, according to Mark, testified that the girl was declared dead, and later rose and walked at Jesus command. However it happened, it’s hard to see how Peter or Mark could have mistaken these things.

Luke had access to Peter, John, (James had already been beheaded) and others, thus fulfilling premise (1) b. We don’t know what became of Jairus or his daughter, but they were also potential witnesses for each of our authors. In his preface, Luke stresses the careful research that went into his history. And Luke was one of Paul’s few companions just prior to the latter’s execution. Standing with Paul after his condemnation made Luke a criminal accomplice to the aged Apostle. So premises (2) and (3) appear valid as well.

In addition, the three Gospel accounts of Jairus’ daughter corroborate each other with only minor differences. These differences are reconcilable to within the limits of overlapping eyewitness accounts. Given that all three premises have all been satisfied for each of the three reports, we appear to have proven a bona fide resurrection.

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.

[b] As an example, Jewish law required a husband to provide at least two pipers and one keening woman for the death of a wife. This was required regardless of the family’s financial ability. For an excellent discussion of first century Jewish mourning and funeral practices, see Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, pp 773-787.

[2] Jeremiah 9:17-21; 48:36; Amos 5:16

[3] Shemuel Safrai, M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Vol. 2, p. 774, Van Gorum, 1974

[4] Semahoth I

[5] Acts 7:60; 13:36; I Corinthians 11:30; 15:6; 18, 20; I Thessalonians 4:14, 15; 5:6, 10; The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter IV; Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, XLIV; Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, IV;

[6] Matthew 9:9; Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, III

(An Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

Part I

…Having established the genuineness of the four canonical Gospel Accounts; having researched their origins and pedigrees; having looked at every witness, Greek, Roman, Jew, and Christian whose testimony could bear on the subject; and realizing that there exists no contradictory testimony; we may proceed to examine the resurrection accounts of the eyewitnesses. We are not denying the existence of other Gnostic and Apocryphal literature; we are merely recognizing that none of this corpus can produce a respectable pedigree. The literature which cannot be confirmed to be from actual witnesses cannot contribute to this discussion of resurrection as a scientific fact. We will leave the investigation of unsubstantiated legend to others. In our search for evidence of resurrection, we have discovered every source of legitimate testimony concerning Christ’s ministry on earth, and we will now use the confirmed testimony of his witnesses to continue the investigation.

The Raising Of Jairus' Daughter - Ilya Yefimovich Repin

6. The Resurrection of the Daughter of Jairus

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke each preserve a resurrection account involving the daughter of one Jairus, ruler of a local Synagogue. This is the first time that we have encountered testimony from multiple eyewitnesses of the same resurrection event. Before we delve into in-depth analysis of these observations, it is fitting that we should address a modern bias which frequently masquerades as “science”.

(i.) The Synoptic Problem:

With three records based upon eyewitness testimony of the same events, there are likely to be many incidences of overlapping material. These similarities may extend to distinctive nuances in the deeds performed, or striking turns of phrase by the participants. Also, based upon the unanimous testimony of the earliest students of the Gospels, we know that it was quite conceivable that Mark could have possessed a Hebrew version of Matthew when he composed the Gospel of Mark. Luke claimed in his introduction to know of a plurality of previous Gospel accounts, and there is no evidence for any belief that these were other than Matthew and Mark. And whoever translated Matthew into Greek could be expected to have had access to all three records of apostolic testimony. So similarities between the various accounts are to be expected.

In addition, there are many differences between the various Gospel accounts. Luke was the only one to preserve the resurrection of the widow’s son at Nain. Mark doesn’t even begin his narrative until the ministry of John the Baptist. And episodes preserved by more than one Gospel are frequently presented from noticeably different perspectives, with one account greatly expanding upon material that is largely glossed over in another. If Matthew indeed wrote to Hebrew converts, and Mark to the Romans, and Luke to a Greek target audience, as our contemporaneous evidence explicitly avers, then such differences in presentation are also to be expected.

The reconciliation of the differences and similarities of these first three Gospel accounts is known as the Synoptic Problem[1]. This problem is a legitimate scientific pursuit. The testimony of three truthful witnesses, as anyone in law enforcement will agree, will yield a more complete picture of what actually happened when integrated into one harmonious sequence of events. This can be difficult to achieve even when approached with dispassion and objectivity. But sometimes, in a courtroom setting, someone with a vested interest contrary to the truth may interrogate the witnesses. Such a person, perhaps an attorney who must discredit the testimony damning to his own client, or an investigator who must close a case for the advancement of his own career, may see the testimony as an obstacle in his path. Depending upon the personal integrity of such an interrogator, this bias may take the form of asking “leading” questions, or construing differences in detail as “proof” of false testimony, or, (in the absence of integrity,) even casting aspersion upon the witnesses themselves.

(ii.) The Pseudo-Scientific Approach:

With this analogy in mind, I would like to arm the reader against certain aspersions which have been cast upon the Gospel accounts. There are two basic schools of anti-Gospel rhetoric. Depending upon which school is speaking, either the differences between the Gospel accounts are irreconcilable, thus “proving” them untrustworthy. Or the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels are so great that they must all be mere embellishment of a common account. (So the Gospel accounts are either too different…or too much alike …we can’t determine which?)

The “difference” school claims to have compared the various Gospel accounts and to have found discrepancies which they say are irreconcilable. Having tried their very hardest to resolve these problems without success, they have determined that the Gospel accounts are “full of contradictions,” (sometimes extrapolating this result to the entire Christian Bible.) They therefore conclude that the four Gospels of Canon are unreliable, relegating them to the status of legend or myth.

It’s funny, if I were to hear two witnesses with conflicting testimony, (going back to our courtroom analogy,) I might think that one of them was not telling the truth. But I would not conclude that ALL of the witnesses were lying. How do you determine that both witnesses are lying just by comparison of their statements? There is no logical reason to discount BOTH statements unless their content disagrees with other known facts. So it seems that, maybe, there is another criteria upon which the witnesses are being judged? As I write this passage, I have on my desk a volume entitled “Jesus Christ: The Greatest Life”, by Johnston M. Cheney and Stanley Ellison Th.D.  This book is a harmony of the Gospel accounts, which in it own words accomplishes:

The subject was Jesus Christ, and the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Arising from the different eyewitness accounts of His life, each of their biographies has a distinct flavor and a unique story line. In spite of their uniqueness, however, it is possible to weave all four of them together completely and without contradiction – adding nothing, deleting nothing – using only the data provided by the authors.

-From the Foreword, Jesus Christ: The Greatest Life, by Johnston M. Cheney and Stanley Ellison Th.D.

The first known attempt to create such a harmony was Tatian’s Diatessaron which was created in the latter half of the second century. The Syrian church used Tatian’s harmony for hundreds of years. I honestly don’t know how many other harmonies have been compiled over the last 2000 years. But it is apparent that some people believe that they can reconcile all four Gospels. So who to believe? In my youth, I studied quite a bit of math and physics. I do recall students saying that they had encountered a problem which could not be solved. I generally gravitated toward those who believed they had solved the problem, rather than those who bemoaned their impossible dilemma.

The last thing that I’ve noticed about the “difference” school is that, having discovered the irreconcilable “contradictions” in the Gospels, and the Bible as a whole, they frequently argue against the authenticity of all other early testimony which bears on the origins of the Gospel accounts. Thus, Suetonius’ “Chrestus” was some slave otherwise unknown to history. The execution of Tacitus’ “great multitudes” of Christians is a Christian forgery, part of a great conspiracy. Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum is yet another forgery, (See Appendix I.) The letters of Ignatius are all forgeries. And all testimony from other church fathers is untrustworthy because of their Christian bias. These men were either fanatics blinded by zeal or dark conspirators in a great cover-up.

So, one by one, the “difference” school finds an excuse to throw out each piece of evidence. Even though the evidence, as our investigation has shown, presents a compelling and self-consistent explanation of how the Gospels came to be. But the root of their issue with the testimony isn’t with the character of the witnesses. The root of their issue is with the content of the testimony, which they believe contradicts scientific truth. After all, if we believe that the Gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony we must consider the possibility that prophecies and resurrections have occurred. And these things are not scientific, are they? This is the bias that we must address.

The bias that we have uncovered is really an ideology which is masquerading as science. This belief system, which we will call Pseudo-Science, rests upon faith in the tenet that things not yet proven by science have somehow been disproved by science. But make no mistake; Pseudo-science is a religion, jealously competing with Christianity for converts. And even though it sounds cooler in Academic circles to say prophecy and resurrection are scientifically impossible, sounding scientific does not make something scientific. Science doesn’t care whether prophecy sounds scientific or not. If the evidence supports the occurrence of prophecy, then science believes in prophecy. If no evidence for prophecy exists, then prophecy is not scientific until such evidence is discovered and examined. But prophecy has by no means been disproved by lack of evidence. And science does not allow anyone to throw out observations and evidence which do not agree with current dogma. Not by casting aspersions on the witnesses; and not by nit-picking procedures and methods until the observations are discredited. Throwing out the evidence is a tool of the religious faithful to quell ideas which threaten their beliefs.

Consider for a moment this hypothetical case: We live in a world in which Newtonian physics is the accepted scientific model. We have now advanced to the point that some of our observations begin to exhibit relativistic effects. Either we are dealing with great masses, or great speeds, but either way our measurements are diverging from Newtonian predictions. Now we must face a hard choice: Either reexamine the Newtonian model that has guided us for hundreds of years, open to the possibility that the model may need revision or replacement; or throw out the evidence which dares to disagree with scientific “fact”. If we recalibrate our instruments so that they only measure Newtonian results, we have fallen into the worship of Pseudo-Science. Science has no pride of ownership. No scientific theory is ever a “fact”. Science requires that we ruthlessly adjust every existing model to best fit the existing data, no matter how attached we become to an existing theory. And the fact that science only deals with what it can measure does not preclude the possibility that phenomena exist which science has yet to measure.

So then, if we have uncovered eyewitness testimony of prophecy, resurrection, or other uncommon phenomena in the historical record, these are the observations upon which we base our model. We have every right to examine the testimony for accuracy and reliability. We must be certain that the testimony derives from actual, historically verifiable eyewitnesses. And we have the responsibility to investigate the witnesses’ character and motives. But we may not throw out the evidence due to disagreement with preconceived beliefs.

Additional support for this analysis is provided by the observation that those who study the Gospels the most; those who delve into the literature to discover the precepts that they will use for personal guidance – do not find the differences to be irreconcilable. Wouldn’t it make sense that the “contradictions” would be most noticeable to those trying to base their lives on the Gospel teachings? But usually those who find irreconcilability are those who start with the bias that the contents of the Gospel accounts preclude their authenticity; in other words, those who commence their investigation having already concluded the impossibility of the narratives. Having considered the difference school of anti-Gospel rhetoric, we now move on to the similarity school.

According to the similarity school, the Gospel accounts exhibit literary dependence. Since Luke’s introduction asserts his knowledge of previous accounts; Since our investigation points to widespread early proliferation of Christian literature; And since several actual eyewitnesses might be expected to remember a distinctive turn of phrase, (consider Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat”, or “This was their Finest Hour”); the basic premise of literary dependence is to be expected. The unexpected and curious response lies within the proposed explanations for the dependence.

Somehow, we are told, this dependence reveals that none of the Gospel accounts are eyewitness testimony at all. Rather, they are all mere embellishments of the original eyewitness account(s), corrupted to project later, unhistorical dogma onto the true and pristine message of Christ. This original document, frequently called “Q”, (from the German “quelle” or “source,”) was a collection of all Jesus’ sayings as well as key incidents in Jesus’ life written by the actual witnesses, which predated and was of far greater authority than the four Canonical Gospels. Modern scholars are amazingly able to predict, with micrometric precision, that the Q document was written by people who had no concept that Jesus was Divine. Q did not believe in miracles. Q saw the “historical” Jesus, a poor ignorant Jewish boy caught up in social and political issues that were beyond his understanding, and finally executed by the Romans for political dissidence.

Yes, Q is the Gospel that agrees with the ideology of its discoverers.

The only problem with this Utopian view, of course, is that no evidence whatsoever exists for Q other than the inferences which our dedicated (and incidentally naturalistic) scholars “see” in the Canonical Gospels. No ancient writer has ever quoted from or referred to Q, and no manuscript has ever been found. In fact no hint of Q exists in any literature before the nineteenth century. But we are told that those who believe in the authenticity of the Canonical Gospels are naïve, while those who understand the nature of Q, inferred from the discredited Canonical Gospels, have achieved enlightenment. The astute reader will have no difficulty discerning the presence of Pseudo-Science, once again.

It is embarrassing to have to address the issues of Pseudo-Science. And I apologize to the reader for the distraction. But the use of Academic authority to perpetrate ideologically “correct” views, or to promote distorted historical interpretations for profit, requires a response. I have great confidence that each reader is capable of discerning the truth for themselves, provided that they hold every proposed theory to the same, truly scientific standard. Gather all the evidence, weigh the evidence, base all theories on the evidence, and require adherence to valid logical argument forms. Let the data suggest the answer. The privilege to choose your own beliefs carries with it the responsibility to understand the basis for those choices. What a shame to let someone else decide what you believe.

(To be continued)