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

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

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

Raphael, Christ's Charge to St. Peter

2. A Difference of Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Crucifixion

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

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

NOTICES:

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

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

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

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

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

Clement of Alexandria at WikiSource

Clement of Alexandria at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

3.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies:

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

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

Irenaeus at WikiSource

Irenaeus at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

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

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

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

Chapter 77 on Google Books:

Chapter 79 at Perseus:

5.) Galen, Commentaries on Hippocrates:

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

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

Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers on Google Books:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Excerpt from Chapter VI of How to Live Forever)

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

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

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

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

2. The Witnesses to the Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when Paul asks Timothy to:

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

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

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

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

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

buy these which the parchment confines in small pages.

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

-Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams, Book I, ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Disciples of the Apostles

(i.) Clement of Rome:

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

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

NOTICES:

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

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

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

3.) Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams:

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

Published by W. Heinemann, 1919

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

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

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

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

[4] Martial, Epigrams X, xix

[5] Pliny II, Letters III, xxi

[6] Pliny II, Letters X, xciv

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

[8] Tacitus, Histories I, 1

[9] Tacitus, Histories V, iii-v

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, iv

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

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

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

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

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

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

[28] Galatians 2:9

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

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

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

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

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

[34] Mark 3:18

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

[36] Matthew 4:21; 10:2

[37] John 1:40-44

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

[39] John 6:71; 13:26

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

[41] Acts 12:1-4

[42] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, xxv

[43] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History II, xxiii

[44] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, xviii

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

[46] I Timothy 1:3

[47] Titus 1:5

The Use of Material Deriving from the Synoptic Gospels

In the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians

(Also known as I Clement)

A.) The Apostolic Fathers

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

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

at Corinth (Achaia).

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

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

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

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

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

2.) The Epistle of Barnabas

3.) The Shepherd of Hermas

4.) The Epistle to Diognetus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.) Methods of Citation Utilized by Clement of Rome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D.) Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTICES:

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

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

The Translations for I Clement are either those of:

1.) James Donaldson:

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

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

Or,

2.) Joseph Barber Lightfoot:

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

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

[3] J. B. Lightfoot, ibid.

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

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

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

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

Useful Links:

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

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

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

It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment…

We are all going to die. We become aware of our mortality at a tender age, and we are taught by society to accept this eventuality as the price of life. Well adjusted individuals reconcile themselves to death as a part of their reality.

But instinctively we know that death is our enemy. And no healthy person wants to die.

So we wax philosophic and derive comfort from the axiom that “death is a part of life… (heavy sigh)” – Which it is not. Death is the cessation of life; this precious life being the gift of God.

Many of us believe that if the way we live our life has meaning, Death will seem less bitter at the end. This attitude is both admirable and constructive. The death which follows is still not good. But by all means put the best face on it.

So we live our lives the best that we can, and try to keep our minds off of the sudden stop at the end. We work hard to fill our lives with things, or to pass down to our children. Some may party and chase women or men to fill empty hours with meaning. Or if we are noble, we fill our lives with service. Even so, there is not much that we wouldn’t do to avoid death. But what CAN we do?

Medical science may someday be able to prolong or restore life. Or maybe not. I’m not certain that we even understand the force that we call life. What substance inhabits living tissue which causes it to differ from the dead? I sincerely hope that there are medical professionals who are hot on the trail. But I don’t expect a breakthrough this week. And the fate of men who live a thousand years from now is scant comfort to me.

Literature is replete with examples of man somehow achieving immortality. Mary Shelley introduces us to a world in which science has unlocked the mystery of life. Vampire stories reveal a race of once-men who will live forever, (although usually at the expense of their immortal souls.) Even Shangra La’s promise of a few hundred years seems hopeful to those of us doomed to a life of three score and ten. These stories illustrate our hopes and desires. But they are just stories.

In the real world, where can we turn? A plethora of religions claims to provide insight to an afterlife. An Afterlife! What a wonderful idea if it exists! If dying is just a doorway to a new and possibly better existence, then Death has lost its sting. All that is necessary then is to determine which belief system is correct, and to adhere to that faith. A correct choice guarantees an afterlife in a far better state. Of course a wrong choice might have dire consequences.

A prevalent view today is that all paths lead to God, that one religion is as good as another as long as you are sincere and a “good” person. If you are certain of this view, you may stop reading now. You have nothing left to learn, and your ascent to a positive afterlife is guaranteed no matter what you believe. In the afterlife you may chide me about my vain and fruitless search for the one true path to God. I have noticed though, that those who adhere to this doctrine don’t really believe in anything with certainty. They appear to be just hoping for the best.

These include the “modernists” who first explain away historical written records of the supernatural in terms of the limited understanding of primitive writers, and then use the “lack” of the miraculous to “prove” the lack of the Divine. As well as the “New Agers” who believe that it is arrogant and boorish to claim that your path is any better than the one that they just thought up. Like Aristotle they have no need to test their hypotheses. If it seems right in their head it must be right. It never occurs to them that a true God might just set His own perfect standard for reasons not totally comprehensible to we the finite.

And the testimony of the various religions contradicts this view as well. Many diverse religions claim exclusive access to God. Obviously some are mistaken.

So how do we “test” our hypothesis? How do we make certain that we are on the path to God without having already died? (Which may be too late?) The answer is simple: Just find a man who has overcome Death, and follow His leadership.

To find this man we must commit ourselves to the historical record. Who remembers the splendor of the Tutankhamen exhibits which toured the USA in the late 1970′s? King Tut was an important historical figure. These exhibits from his tomb indicate that Death overcame him. Likewise, a little research provides insight into the deaths of Gaius Julius Caesar, Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, Richard Coeur de Lion, Saladin, Zhu Yuanzhang and most other historical figures. History usually tells us how a famous person died. The written record also indicates that they tend to remain dead.