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 V)

Part I of III

This excerpt contains the first full treatment of a resurrection account from the book, How to Live Forever. The authorship and reliability of source texts have been examined and verified in the first four chapters. For purposes of this essay, assume that Paul’s companion, Luke, authored the third gospel in the late 50′s AD based upon interviews with eyewitnesses indigenous to Judea; and particularly those residing in Jerusalem, the center of the earliest church. The occasion for this opportunity was provided by Luke’s role as intermediary between the elders of the Jerusalem church and the apostle Paul, during the latter’s two year incarceration at Caesarea Maritima. This essay will be provided in three parts, each demonstrating a necessary facet of authenticity. Beginning with part I:

Jean Jouvenet: The Resurrection of Lazarus

And to any thoughtful person would anything appear more incredible, than, if we were not in the body, and some one were to say that it was possible that from a small drop of human seed bones and sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such as we see? For let this now be said hypothetically: if you yourselves were not such as you now are, and born of such parents [and causes], and one were to show you human seed and a picture of a man, and were to say with confidence that from such a substance such a being could be produced, would you believe before you saw the actual production? No one will dare to deny [that such a statement would surpass belief]. In the same way, then, you are now incredulous because you have never seen a dead man rise again. But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God’s appointed time rise again and put on incorruption. -Justin’s First Apology to the Romans, xix

For we recognize that reports of resurrection do exist, and we must not delude ourselves into throwing out all such reports as a contradiction to an unproven but assumed physical law. Faithful to our new method, we will rather use these reports as the observations necessary for the formulation of our model.

First, we must separate evidence from myth. We have been examining the reliability of Luke’s report that Jesus Christ of Nazareth performed a resurrection at the gates of Nain in Judea. Based upon the historical groundwork we have laid; let us now see whether we believe a resurrection actually took place:

¹¹Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. ¹²As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out-the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. ¹³When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.”

¹⁴Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” ¹⁵The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

¹⁶They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has appeared among us,” they said. “God has come to help his people.” ¹⁷This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country.

-Luke 7:11-17

We originally stipulated three premises by which we could judge the credibility of this compilation of eyewitness reports concerning the Nain incident:

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

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

c. both a. and b. above.

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

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

Taking these in reverse order we find:

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

The first fact to establish is that the widow’s son was truly deceased. From other period accounts of Jewish funerals we know that it was customary to bind the dead hand and foot with graveclothes, and to cover their face with a napkin[1].Often the bodies were anointed with spices as well[2]. This funeral preparation was not as elaborate as an Egyptian mummification, but still indicative of a process involving time and care with the corpse[3].

Part of the purpose for any funeral ritual is to assure that the subject is actually deceased. Ancient peoples felt much the same way about death that we do today. They knew that sometimes a person could be unconscious with few signs of life. To avoid this, unmistakable proofs of death were required.

Cessation of breathing and heartbeat are such proofs. But even more certain are the reduction of body temperature and rigor mortis that follow soon after death. If at any time during the process of wrapping and preparing the body, signs of life were manifest, then the funeral process could be halted and the body returned to the care of a physician. Even in ancient times no one wanted to be buried alive.

Jesus’ party met a funeral procession with a man bound in graveclothes on his way to be interred. The man was dead in the eyes of the law, dead to his friends and family, and dead to his widowed mother. This was no joke. If Jesus had not interrupted the ceremony the man would have been buried or entombed, and there his remains, if undisturbed, would lie today.

Could Luke’s witnesses have been mistaken? Jesus, his disciples, and the large crowd following Jesus only believed the man was dead because they met the funeral procession conveying the body to its tomb. Jesus’ followers were depending upon the fact that the man was arrayed for burial as proof of preceding death. So they, and we, are really counting upon the crowd from Nain having made certain of the man’s death before his funeral. Could the people of Nain, the dead man’s family, doctors, and funeral workers have all been mistaken?

The dead man could not have feigned death for obvious reasons. How do you “feign” cessation of heartbeat, breathing, perspiration, hunger (with grumbling stomach,) urination, etc? But could the man have suffered from some debilitating malady which reduced the body’s vital signs to such an extent as to mimic death? Could a man with drastically impaired bodily functions have slipped through the ancient screening process? This path is so speculative that I hesitate to tread upon it, lest our purpose be lost forever amidst a diversity of not quite impossible options. For the sake of our argument though, let us say that this widow’s son was either dead or afflicted with some infirmity which produced the appearance of death. We conclude that the witnesses could be mistaken only to this extent.

So far we have proven the mundane. The odds are good that you can demonstrate the subject’s death at nearly any funeral that you attend. I will leave this experiment as an exercise for your investigation, confident that your results will support our conclusions. The reason that Luke saw fit to record this account is what happened next:

¹⁴Then he went up and touched the coffin, and those carrying it stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” ¹⁵The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

-Luke 7:14-15

For some inexplicable reason, in front of a large crowd of people, Jesus risked his reputation to speak to an apparent corpse. It is likely that the man’s mother, bereft and forlorn, had spoken to the body in terms of her love and how she would miss her beloved son. But Jesus was a stranger to Nain. From the account, it appears that he never even learned the name of the deceased.

And Jesus doesn’t speak of sorrow, or love, or an afterlife, or a reunion in the sweet by and by. Jesus instead tells the corpse of a young man to get up. And he says this in front of everyone. It is very hard to see how the witnesses could have mistaken this! If nothing had happened, who would have been surprised? In human experience, how often does a dead man get up?

But Luke tells us that his witnesses saw the dead man sit up and begin to talk. I am certain that this was unmistakable. And probably not something you would soon forget either! In all likelihood the dead man sat up still bound in graveclothes, and spoke through the napkin covering his face.

Everyone present was filled with awe and praised God. They all recognized Jesus as a great prophet. And the news of the incident spread throughout Judea. This is all very understandable given the events. But now we are face to face with the suspension of normal physical laws. A dead man, or one so sick that he seemed dead, sat up and talked at Jesus’ command.

If the man was truly dead then Jesus performed a resurrection. If the man was only deathly ill then he was instantaneously and miraculously healed at Jesus’ command. Since either of these events is equally impossible by everyday standards, it is illogical and perverse for us to assume that the witnesses were mistaken as to his death. In other words, if we are to choose between two miraculous suspensions of natural process, it is most reasonable to first assume that those present would have the most intuitive grasp of what actually occurred.

If the testimony presented in Luke 7:11-17 is true, then we have our first indisputable case of resurrection from the dead. Historically verifiable in the sense that a man may be convicted of murder based upon the testimony of a “large crowd” of witnesses, the strength of our case rests upon the trustworthiness of the witnesses. With this understanding, let us proceed to premise (1): (to be continued)

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.) Justin Martyr, Apology:

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.

Justin at WikiSource

Justin at Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[2] Luke 24:1

[3] Tacitus, The Histories, V, v

…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

Joseph, son of Matthias, was born a few years after the crucifixion of Christ, during the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar (Caligula)[I], or 37 AD. Through his mother he derived from the Hasmonaean bloodline, a sacerdotal lineage which had included high-priests who were also kings. As evidence of Josephus’ rank within Jewish Society, he was selected in his twenty-sixth year[II] as a delegate to appear before Caesar in Rome in 63 AD. There he became friends with Nero’s wife, Poppea, through whose patronage he was able to accomplish his mission. Joseph returned to Judea in the midst of the Jewish uprising against Rome.

Joseph eventually found himself in command of the Jewish armies for the region of Galilee, where he fought Roman Legions under the command of Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian). Captured alive at Jotapata, Joseph gave a prophecy to this Roman Commander that both Vespasian and his son Titus would reign as Caesar[III]. In his various writings, Joseph repeatedly claimed to have experienced such prophetic dreams and visions[IV]. When the prophecy was fulfilled and Vespasian was indeed elevated to the rank of Caesar, he rewarded Joseph with an apartment in the new Emperor’s own house, as well as Roman citizenship and an annual pension[V]. It was at this time that Joseph adopted his benefactor’s family name and became known as Flavius Josephus.

While residing at Rome, under the auspices of the Flavian Emperors[VI], Josephus wrote first the Wars of the Jews (AD 75), and subsequently the Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), as well as other works. Contained within the pages of Josephus’ Antiquities is a passage commonly referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum:

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

-Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter iii, 3 (Whiston Translation)

This remarkable passage is present in all extant manuscripts of the Antiquities. Further, it was cited verbatim by Eusebius Pamphili in his Ecclesiastical History[VII] and his Proof of the Gospel[VIII], both written around 300 AD. The earliest potential reference to the Testimonium Flavianum came in 246-248 AD, when Origen included the following phrase in a discussion of material from Josephus’ Antiquities[IX]:

And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner…

-Excerpt from Origen, Commentaries on Matthew, Book X, Chapter xvii

This phrase certainly captures the same thought as Josephus’ “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man“. Since Origen was already discussing a passage from the Antiquities, is it not likely that this wording is an allusion to another passage from the same history? This and other resemblances of concept and language were discussed in detail by Whiston[X].

Writers who later cite the Testimonium Flavianum include St. Jerome[XI] in 392 AD, Agapius[XII] the Melkite Bishop of Hierapolis around 942 AD, and Michael the Syrian[XIII] in 1195 AD. Jerome and Michael change the phrase “he was the Christ” as found in the received text to “he was believed to be the Christ“[XIV]. Agapius may well have been paraphrasing from memory, as he even entitled Josephus’ work “The Governance of the Jews“.

With the Testimonium Flavianum uniformly present in every existing manuscript of Josephus, and having also been cited in substantially the received form by numerous ancient authors, one would normally assume the authenticity of Josephan authorship to be established. All primary evidence indicates that Josephus, for reasons of his own, and whether or not we understand his motives, authored the passage. There is no conflicting data.

However, critiques of the Testimonium Flavianum frequently assert that most (some say all) “scholars” object to certain phrases contained within the passage. Their line of reasoning is that Josephus cannot have authored these phrases because the scholars’ understanding of Josephus’ meaning is incompatible with the scholars’ conception of Josephus’ ideology. Specifically, they believe that Jews were hostile to the Christian claims that: 1. Jesus was Divine; 2. Jesus was the promised Messiah; and 3. Jesus rose from the dead. Josephus, as a practicing Jewish priest, would not in their opinion have agreed with the phrases italicized below, and therefore could not have written them:

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

-Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter iii, 3 (Whiston Translation)

Since they opine that Josephus cannot have written the italicized phrases, they conclude that some unknown Christian sympathizer has altered the text of all copies which have survived to the present, including the copies referenced by Eusebius, Jerome, and Michael. Our eminent scholars believe Origen to have possessed their hypothetical “original,” and Origen’s similarity of expression to one of the objectionable phrases would then be mere happenstance – not evidence at all. The pro-Christian alteration would have been performed in such a fashion that it affected manuscripts throughout the Roman world, at least from Rome to Palestine[1]. And the revision occurred whether the owner of the work was Christian, non-Christian, or anti-Christian. In addition, everyone in the ancient world went along with it, so by the time Eusebius cited the received form around the time of Constantine the memory of the original version had either faded past recollection – a miraculous event since the Romans who would have had to have accepted the pro-Christian revisions in the forgotten past were the same Romans who punished Christianity with death. Or conversely, the lie was perpetrated by the Christians of Eusebius’ time, men who had risked death in their own lifetimes[XV] in order to remain true to their deeply held personal convictions. Obviously not one of these men would stand up for the truth? This or some similar chain of events the scholars aver to be more likely than that Josephus harbored some latent sympathy towards the sect known as Christians, outlawed by the Roman law of his day.

I hesitate to address this type of argument because I have a strong fundamental disagreement with its underlying logic. I believe that true scientific analysis compels us choose an hypothesis which best fits all of the data, rather than choosing the data which best fits our hypothesis. Frequently, I have found that it is the incongruous or inconvenient piece of evidence which leads to the very answers we seek. So, in my opinion, the scholars’ argument is discredited from the beginning because the desired conclusion – that Josephus cannot have written a passage favorable to Christ – is the very criteria based upon which the evidence that he did so write is rejected[2]. Nevertheless, and largely due to the fact that these speculative conjectures have gained widespread acceptance, we will examine the premises whose truth would be required to support the argument that Josephus’ convictions precluded his agreement with the phases under scrutiny:

(I) Flavius Josephus remained an adherent of the Jewish faith and never renounced it in favor of Christianity.

Exactly how do we know what another man believes in his heart? Men who die for specific beliefs leave us little doubt as to those convictions. But most men are not martyred, and to this more common case belonged Josephus.

We have already demonstrated Joseph to have been born Jewish. But of course all of Jesus’ original disciples were Jewish. The Apostle Paul, a leading Pharisee, converted to Christianity a few years before Joseph’s birth[XVI]. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue in Corinth, Greece converted to Christianity during Joseph’s childhood[XVII]. So what did Josephus believe when he penned the Antiquities?

Origen is often cited as evidence that Josephus never converted[XVIII], and he likely had access to source materials that have been lost in the eighteen-hundred years since he wrote. But Origen wrote one-hundred-fifty years after Josephus’ published his Antiquities, and Caesarea is far from Rome, and Origen does not name his sources. So we have no way to determine whether Origen’s belief was well founded.

Our best witness is Josephus himself, who closes the Antiquities of the Jews with the final words:

And if God permit me, I will briefly run over this war again, with what befell us therein to this very day, which is the thirteenth year of the reign of Cæsar Domitian, and the fifty-sixth year of my own life. I have also an intention to write three books concerning our Jewish opinions about God and his essence, and about our laws; why, according to them, some things are permitted us to do, and others are prohibited.

-Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter xi, Paragraph 3

The preface to the Antiquities contains the same sentiments expressed in more detail, extolling the virtues of Moses, not Jesus, as a law-giver[XIX]. So it is clear that Josephus never renounced his Jewish faith. But does that necessarily render Josephus hostile to Jesus of Nazareth called Christ?

(II) All Jews were hostile to the Christian claims that: 1. Jesus was Divine; 2. Jesus was the promised Messiah; and 3. Jesus rose from the dead.

Taking these in reverse order:

3. All Jews were hostile to the Christian claims that Jesus rose from the dead.

I fail to see why Jesus’ resurrection would be such an obstacle to a practicing Pharisee, as Josephus claimed to be[XX]. The New Testament[XXI] and Josephus’ own writings[XXII] each document that a point of contention between the Jewish sects of Pharisee and Sadducee was this very issue of resurrection. The Pharisees were the sect that supported the doctrine.

The Pharisees literally interpreted the Jewish Scriptures, which recorded that the Prophets Elijah[XXIII] and Elisha[XXIV] had each performed a resurrection. These Scriptures taught that a man had risen from death just by touching Elisha’s bones[XXV]. A serious student of the Jewish Holy Writ would also know of two men who never died, but were taken alive to be with G-d[XXVI]. And finally he would know the story of how the prophet Samuel appeared after death to King Saul[XXVII]. So if a Pharisee accepted that Jesus was a true Prophet of Israel, the idea that he rose from the dead would be within the bounds of previous Divine intervention. If a Pharisee believed Jesus to be a false Prophet, then his resurrection would likewise be assumed counterfeit.

2. All Jews were hostile to the Christian claims that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

First of all, it is not completely clear that Josephus was indicating that he personally believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the “Anointed One” or Christ (Χριστός). It is quite possible that, for the benefit of his Roman and Greek audience, Josephus was merely identifying the specific Jesus to whom the passage referred as that same Jesus who authored the controversial Judean religion associated with the name “Christ”. Both he and his audience may well have understood his meaning to be: “About this time lived Jesus, a wise man…you know, the one they call Christ.”

This usage of “the Christ” to denote one of a myriad of Hebrews named Jesus or Joshua would be in keeping Josephus’ treatment of other historical figures such as Judas the Maccabee[XXVIII], Judas the Galilean[XXIX], Judas the Essene[XXX]. In each of these cases, Josephus distinguishes a specific character from others of the same name through the addition of an attribute exclusive to the individual under discussion. In the case of our Jesus, the appellation “of Nazareth” was added by the Jewish community of Judea[XXXI]. But Roman writers[XXXII] tell us that Jesus was known to the Roman populace from the time of Nero (64 AD) as “the Christ”, the founder of the abominable sect of “Christians.” So it is most reasonable that Josephus would identify Jesus to a Roman audience as “the Christ”, following the Romans’ own usage[3].

In Josephus’ only other reference to Jesus, he employs exactly this literary device as clarification for the reader, “…so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James[4]…”

The slight alteration in the wording of the Testimonium as cited by Jerome and Michael the Syrian[XXXIII] demonstrates that these ancient writers had no difficulty understanding that Josephus was not making a personal profession of faith. Rather, they each interpreted that Josephus was designating a specific Jesus vis-à-vis his reputation, through the use of a personal attribute which would distinguish his identity for the reader. And the fact that they altered the received text in a similar fashion points not to another variant text or forgery, but illustrates that similar conclusions will result from a well-conceived, logical argument form.

Still, it is clear from the rest of the language of the Testimonium that Josephus held this particular Jesus in high regard. Such statements as “for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure “ and “…as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him …” certainly indicate an elevated status for the recipient. So let us assume for a moment, based upon this language, that Josephus did entertain the notion that Jesus may have been a prophet, or that he may have been an “Anointed One” of G-d. What exactly would a declaration of Jesus as “the Christ” have meant to a Pharisee in the first-century AD?

The New Testament reveals that when John, called “the Baptist”, began his ministry, the Jewish religious leaders sent a delegation to discover John’s intended role:

¹⁹Now this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. ²⁰He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.”

²¹They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”
He said, “I am not.”
“Are you the Prophet?”
He answered, “No.”

²²Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

²³John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ ” ²⁴Now some Pharisees who had been sent ²⁵questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

²⁶“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. ²⁷He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

-The Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 1, Verses 19-27 (New International Version)

From this account it appears that although we today expect the various prophetic Jewish Scripture to all apply to one Messiah, this was not necessarily the case in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees questioning John the Baptist were considering his candidacy for a number of distinct offices associated with the Messianic prophecies. Schurer indicates that the Jewish leadership may have held widely divergent opinions concerning the exact role of the Messiah, and the manner in which the prophecies would be fulfilled[XXXIV]. In this way, Matthew records that King Herod the Great perceived the Messiah as an earthly King, and therefore a threat to the throne[XXXV]. Other New Testament characters saw the Messiah in a different light[XXXVI].

It may very well be impossible, then, to determine a universal interpretation of Messianic Scripture acceptable to the sect of Pharisees during this period. But even if such a determination were possible, it would still be insufficient evidence to establish the premise that Josephus was by virtue of his faith incapable of declaring Jesus “the Christ.” Proving this premise requires more than a general assessment of what the majority of Pharisees may have believed – it necessitates that we somehow divine the ideology of Josephus himself. Fortunately, Josephus was considerate enough to relate to us a portion of his personal beliefs concerning the Messianic prophecies:

Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation, but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, that “then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square.” But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, “about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

- Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter v, Section 4, (Whiston Translation)

According to the interpretation of Josephus – Pharisee, Priest, and descendant of Hasmonaean royalty – at least some of the Messianic prophecies contained within the Jewish Scriptures were fulfilled with the accession of the Roman Emperor Vespasian! Following the logic of the scholars’ argument, this would then require Josephus to have “converted” to Vespasianity? Or does this rather point out the fallacy of their position, demonstrating that Josephus’ conception of “the Christ” might entail no ramifications whatsoever to his personal method of worship.

Having thus proclaimed this aspect of his personal beliefs, does it now seem so improbable that Josephus could also attribute some aspect of the Messianic prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth? If the idea that Josephus would declare Jesus to be “the Christ”; Jesus who was at least an adherent of Judaism; Jesus who could make claim to the tribe of Judah and the Davidic lineage[XXXVII]; Jesus who was held by some Jews to be a prophet[XXXVIII] – If the bare prospect of that declaration presents such an insurmountable paradox to our scholars, then surely the placement of the confirmed heathen Vespasian in that role of Messiah would be the greater enigma? [5]

None of the preceding should be taken to infer that I now believe Josephus was in fact naming Jesus “the Christ”. The most likely hypothesis based upon the evidence is that Josephus’ declaration was intended for identification, not spiritual contemplation. But in order to go forward it was first necessary to demonstrate the bankrupt conclusions that result from this sort of fallacious reasoning. To which end, it is now necessary to ask what Josephus did believe concerning the Jesus of whom he wrote so favorably.

1. All Jews were hostile to the Christian claims that Jesus was Divine.

Soon after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth his disciples began to preach publicly in Jerusalem that he was the Christ and had risen from the grave[XXXIX]. These claims not surprisingly precipitated a confrontation between Jesus’ disciples and the ruling Jewish Sanhedrin council:

¹The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. ²They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. ³They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. ⁴But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

-Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4, Verses 1-4 (NIV)

After several arrests the Sanhedrin council held a debate to determine the proper penalty for these earliest Christians’ disobedience. While some of the Sanhedrin believed that the Apostles’ claims were blasphemous and deserving of capital punishment, others were of a different mind. In particular, early Christians note the intervention of Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel, a noted Rabbi of whom the Talmud states, “Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.” (Mish. Sotah ix.15) The Acts of the Apostles preserves the following record of Gamaliel’s view:

³³When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. ³⁴But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. ³⁵Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. ³⁶Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. ³⁷After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. ³⁸Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. ³⁹But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

-The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 5, Verses 33-39 (NIV)

Now Gamaliel knew that the Apostles were claiming that Jesus was the Christ, who had risen from the dead. The earliest Christian literature uniformly makes these claims[XL]. He also had to know that the followers of Christ were claiming that Christ was more than just a man[XLI], (why else would the council be considering capital punishment?) These are the very three points with which our scholars take exception, stating categorically that no Pharisee could ever support these claims. But as a Pharisee anticipating the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, Gamaliel was loathe to pass judgment on exactly how these claims applied to Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, he suggested that time would reveal the truth.

How similar is this position to the Pharisee Josephus’ attitude when he states, “About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.” Does this statement mean that Josephus accepted Jesus as the son of God, the only recipient of the Messianic prophecies, and the only path to salvation for all Mankind? Most probably this was not his meaning. Rather the testimonies of Gamaliel and Josephus suggest that some first-century Pharisees were considering whether and how this controversial figure, Jesus of Nazareth, fit into the fabric of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic Law[6]. Any Pharisee who became convinced of these claims would perforce convert to Christianity. But contemplating the possibility may have been quite common[XLII].

Considering the matter from the perspective of Josephus and Gamaliel, the questions concerning Jesus of Nazareth may have taken the form: Did Jesus really perform the miracles attributed to him; Did he raise Lazarus from the dead; If so, doesn’t that make him one of the great prophets of Israel, equal to Elijah or Elisha; Did G-d raise Jesus from the dead; If not, why would his disciples have persevered in the claim that cost their lives; Could he have appeared as a vision, rather than in physical form; If Jesus did rise again, is he the subject of some of the prophecies contained within the Jewish Holy Writ; How can I know whether to believe the testimony of Jesus’ disciples? Add to these uncertainties the social stigma of accepting a view found unpalatable by much of the Jewish religious leadership. And finally, consider the legal complications (in Josephus’ case) that accompanied the endorsement of a religion not approved by Rome.

As one other insight into his dilemma, we must never forget Josephus’ own claim to the prophetic office. Based upon prophetic vision, Josephus defied the expectation of his military superiors. Rather than ending his own life as required, he remained true to his calling and allowed himself to be captured alive[XLIII]. In this way he became G-d’s messenger to Vespasian[XLIV]. Now Josephus, from his own perspective, had obeyed a higher calling. But in the eyes of his countrymen, he was a traitor[XLV]. So if Josephus the prophet, misunderstood by his own countrymen and the Jewish leadership, hears tales of Jesus the prophet, surrounded by very similar controversies, where do you, the reader, think his sympathies might lie?

But the complete details of Josephus’ actual thoughts are not known. Our exercise merely demonstrates that the alleged certainty of Josephus’ position required by the scholars’ argument is unfounded. Failing the establishment of this premise, the rest of their argument collapses. In this short note we have reversed the form of their argument, thus demonstrating that the most probable conclusion confirms the Josephan authorship of the Testimonium Flavianum in the received form.

NOTICES:

1.) Titus Flavius Josephus:

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

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

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

2.) Origen of Alexandria, Commentaries on Matthew:

Citations are from A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and Chronologically arranged with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885). The text is in the public domain.

3.) Tacitus, Histories:

Citations are from The History of Tacitus, Translated into English, with Notes and a Map, by Alfred John Church, M.A. and William Jackson Brodribb, Third Edition, London, MacMillan and Co., 1876. This translation is in the public domain and available as a .pdf file on Google books. A searchable version may be found online at:

http://www.chieftainsys.freeserve.co.uk/tacitus.htm

Tacitus, Annals:

Citations are from The Annals of Tacitus, Translated into English, with Notes and Maps, by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. Published by Macmillan and co., limited, 1906. This translation is in the public domain and available as a .pdf file on Google books. A searchable version may be found online at:

http://www.chieftainsys.freeserve.co.uk/tacitus.htm

4.) 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.

5.) Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Cæsars:

Citations are from Suetonius, Translated by John Carew Rolfe,

Published by W. Heinemann, 1920. This translation is in the public domain and available as a .pdf file on Google books. A searchable version may be found online at:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html

6.) Cassius Dio, Roman History:

Citations are from the Loeb Classical Library edition, Harvard University Press, 1914 thru 1927, translation by Earnest Cary. This translation is in the public domain, and may be found online at:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html

Specifically, we know that Eusebius wrote from Caesarea Maritime when he cited the Antiquities, Origen wrote both Contra Celsum and Commentaries on Matthew from Caesarea (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxxvi), and Jerome wrote his Lives in Bethlehem. Since Josephus and Domitian (and Tacitus) resided in the vicinity of Rome, it a fair statement that the Antiquities had spread from Rome to Palestine prior to 246-248 AD, when Origen discussed Josephus. How much further it may have traveled is an open question.

[2] The scholars’ argument assumes the premise that Josephus must have had incompatible convictions, and based upon this presumption violates the written evidence that he did not hold such convictions. An appropriate approach might yield the question, “Based upon the evidence that Josephus wrote this passage, what might have been his convictions?” I frequently base my decisions upon a complex array of motives, and you, the reader, probably do so as well. It is unlikely that anyone else will completely understand my deeply held beliefs, or yours, unless we explain them. Let us grant Josephus the same courtesy, and not assume him to be a cardboard cutout, bereft of the sometimes complimentary and oftentimes conflicting intangible nuances of motive that define our own behavior.

[3] I am not inferring that Josephus followed the usage of Tacitus and Suetonius, whose work the Antiquities likely predated. I am rather deducing that all three men followed a Roman terminology whose first appearance may have been under Claudius, and which usage became commonplace during the persecution of Christians under Nero. Such a persecution would likely be the subject of discussion for the general population, which discussion would in turn accelerate the evolution of the language. Thirty years after Nero’s persecution, at the time the Antiquities were published, most Romans would share a common designation for the class of people who had thus been singled out for persecution by Nero.

[4] This excerpt is from the Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter ix, Section 1, Paragraph 200. The translation is Whiston’s.

[5] If we apply the scholars’ logic to Josephus’ passage on Vespasian, we must assume yet another forgery. Obviously, no practicing Jew could write that a heathen Emperor was the Messiah? So where is the scholars’ outcry over this pro-Roman alteration of the devout Jew’s orthodox work? Where the cries of dark Roman conspiracy? The Romans were at least in the position of power to perpetrate a cover-up, if we believe in such conspiracy theories.

[6] One of the objections to the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is based upon the premise that Christian authors writing prior to Eusebius would certainly have cited this passage, due to its content, had they but known of its existence. We have already pointed to a possible allusion in the works of Origen (Comm. On Matt., X, xvii, see discussion App. I, p. ii), but this evidence critics disallow. Their argument thus concludes that the failure by men such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and especially Origen to reference this passage within their own writings somehow proves that the Testimonium did not exist at the time when they wrote, (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, Chapter II, p. 93.) From this datum, one may jump to the further conclusion that the Testimonium is a corruption of the original text of the Antiquities, i.e. a later forgery or interpolation. I can only point out that this speech of Gamaliel, containing content which could have been used to provide much the same evidence as the Testimonium, and contained within the text of the Acts of the Apostles which was certainly more readily available to the early Christian writers under discussion than was Josephus’ Antiquities - this remarkably pro-Christian speech from the lips of a Pharisee of greater theological repute than Josephus – was only cited twice to my knowledge in ante-Nicene literature. Origen, the same author who penned a possible allusion to the Testimonium, clearly references Gamaliel’s speech in his great work, Against Celsus, I, lvii. The only other ante-Nicene reference to this speech of which I am aware occurs in the Recognitions of Clement, a homily of unknown author and origin. If this passage from the Book of Acts, one of the most widely spread and well-known pieces of early Christian literature, was so nearly overlooked by these authors, what surprise is it that the Testimonium, a passage from Josephus’ less recognized work, Antiquities, should be nearly overlooked as well?

The family from which I am derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests; and as nobility among several people is of a different origin, so, with us, to be of the sacerdotal dignity, is an indication of the splendor of a family. Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather’s father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus: he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests, was named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias; he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest, which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus; his son’s name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra; his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Cæsar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian; as was Justus born on the seventh, and Agrippa on the ninth. Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me, [as of a lower original].

[II] The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 3 (Whiston Translation)

But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome, and this on the occasion which I shall now describe. At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea, there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and very excellent persons they were, whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Cæsar. These I was desirous to procure deliverance for, and that especially because I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God even under their afflictions, but supported themselves with figs and nuts. Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards by sea; for, as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God’s providence prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship. And when I had thus escaped, and was come to Dicearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea, Cæsar’s wife, and took care as soon as possible to entreat her to procure, that the priests might be set at liberty. And when besides this favor, I had obtained many presents from Poppea, I returned home again.

[III] Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter viii, Paragraph 9, (Whiston Translation)

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

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Life of Vespasian V, vi

When he [Vespasian] consulted the oracle of the god of Carmel in Judaea, the lots were highly encouraging, promising that whatever he planned or wished, however great it might be, would come to pass; and one of his high-born prisoners, Josephus by name, as he was being put in chains, declared most confidently that he would soon be released by the same man, who would then, however, be emperor.

Cassius Dio, Roman History LXVI, 1

Such was the course of these events; and following them Vespasian was declared emperor by the senate also, and Titus and Domitian were given the title of Caesars. The consular office was assumed by Vespasian and Titus while the former was in Egypt and the latter in Palestine. Now portents and dreams had come to Vespasian pointing to the sovereignty long beforehand. Thus, as he was eating dinner on his country estate, where most of his time was spent, an ox approached him, knelt down and placed his head beneath his feet. On another occasion, when he was also eating, a dog dropped a human hand under the table. And a conspicuous cypress tree, which had been uprooted and overthrown by a violent wind, stood upright again on the following day by its own power and continued to flourish. From a dream he learned that when Nero Caesar should lose a tooth, he himself should be emperor. This prophecy about the tooth became a reality on the following day; and Nero himself in his dreams once thought that he had brought the car of Jupiter to Vespasian’s house. These portents needed interpretation; but not so the saying of a Jew named Josephus: he, having earlier been captured by Vespasian and imprisoned, laughed and said: “You may imprison me now, but a year from now, when you have become emperor, you will release me.”

[IV] The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 42 (Whiston Translation)

But wonderful it was what a dream I saw that very night; for when I had betaken myself to my bed, as grieved and disturbed at the news that had been written to me, it seemed to me, that a certain person stood by me, and said, “O Josephus! leave off to afflict thy soul, and put away all fear; for what now grieves thee will render thee very considerable, and in all respects most happy; for thou shalt get over not only these difficulties, but many others, with great success. However, be not cast down, but remember that thou art to fight with the Romans.” When I had seen this dream, I got up with an intention of going down to the plain. Now when the whole multitude of the Galileans, among whom were the women and children, saw me, they threw themselves down upon their faces, and, with tears in their eyes, besought me not to leave them exposed to their enemies, nor to go away and permit their country to be injured by them. But when I did not comply with their entreaties, they compelled me to take an oath, that I would stay with them: they also cast abundance of reproaches upon the people of Jerusalem, that they would not let their country enjoy peace.

Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter viii, Paragraph 3, (Whiston Translation)

Now as Josephus began to hesitate with himself about Nicanor’s proposal, the soldiery were so angry, that they ran hastily to set fire to the den; but the tribune would not permit them so to do, as being very desirous to take the man alive. And now, as Nicanor lay hard at Josephus to comply, and he understood how the multitude of the enemies threatened him, he called to mind the dreams which he had dreamed in the night-time, whereby God had signified to him beforehand both the future calamities of the Jews, and the events that concerned the Roman emperors. Now Josephus was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretation of such dreams as have been ambiguously delivered by God. Moreover, he was not unacquainted with the prophecies contained in the sacred books, as being a priest himself, and of the posterity of priests: and just then was he in an ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, he put up a secret prayer to God, and said,- “Since it pleaseth thee, who hast created the Jewish nation, to depress the same, and since all their good fortune is gone over to the Romans; and since thou hast made choice of this soul of mine to foretel what is to come to pass hereafter, I willingly give them my hands, and am content to live. And I protest openly, that I do not go over to the Romans as a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee.”

Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book IV, Chapter x, Section 7, (Whiston Translation)

7. So Vespasian’s good fortune succeeded to his wishes every where, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine Providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power; for as he called to mind the other signals, which had been a great many every where, that foretold he should obtain the government, so did he remember what Josephus had said to him when he ventured to foretell his coming to the empire while Nero was alive: so he was much concerned that this man was still in bonds with him. He then called for Mucianus, together with his other commanders and friends, and, in the first place, he informed them what a valiant man Josephus had been, and what great hardships he had made him undergo in the siege of Jotapata. After that he related those predictions of his which he had then suspected as fictions, suggested out of the fear he was in, but which had by time been demonstrated to be divine. “It is a shameful thing, said he, that this man who hath foretold my coming to the empire beforehand, and been the minister of a divine message to me, should still be retained in the condition of a captive or prisoner.” So he called for Josephus, and commanded that he should be set at liberty; whereupon the commanders promised themselves glorious things, from this requital Vespasian made to a stranger. Titus was then present with his father, and said, “O father, it is but just that the scandal [of a prisoner] should be taken off Josephus, together with his iron chain. For if we do not barely loose his bonds, but cut them to pieces, he will be like a man that had never been bound at all.” For that is the usual method as to such as have been bound without a cause. This advice was agreed to by Vespasian also; so there came a man in, and cut the chain to pieces; while Josephus received this testimony of his integrity for a reward, and was moreover esteemed a person of credit as to futurities also.

See also two examples in Endnote III above: Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter viii, Paragraph 9, (Whiston Translation)

[V] The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 76 (Whiston Translation)

But when Titus had composed the troubles in Judea, and conjectured that the lands which I had in Judea would bring me in no profit, because a garrison to guard the country was afterwards to pitch there, he gave me another country in the plain. And when he was going away to Rome, he made choice of me to sail along with him, and paid me great respect: and when we were come to Rome, I had great care taken of me by Vespasian; for he gave me an apartment in his own house, which he lived in before he came to the empire. He also honored me with the privilege of a Roman citizen; and gave me an annual pension; and continued to respect me to the end of his life, without any abatement of his kindness to me; which very thing made me envied, and brought me into danger; for a certain Jew, whose name was Jonathan, who had raised a tumult in Cyrene, and had persuaded two thousand men of that country to join with him, was the occasion of their ruin. But when he was bound by the governor of that country, and sent to the emperor, he told him, that I had sent him both weapons and money. However, he could not conceal his being a liar from Vespasian, who condemned him to die; according to which sentence he was put to death. Nay, after that, when those that envied my good fortune did frequently bring accusations against me, by God’s providence I escaped them all. I also received from Vespasian no small quantity of land, as a free gift in Judea, about which time I divorced my wife also, as not pleased with her behavior, though not till she had been the mother of three children, two of whom are dead, and one whom I named Hyrcanus, is alive. After this I married a wife who had lived at Crete, but a Jew by birth; a woman she was of eminent parents, and such as were the most illustrious in all the country, and whose character was beyond that of most other women, as her future life did demonstrate. By her I had two sons, the elder’s name was Justus, and the next Simonides, who was also named Agrippa. And these were the circumstances of my domestic affairs. However, the kindness of the emperor to me continued still the same; for when Vespasian was dead, Titus, who succeeded him in the government, kept up the same respect for me which I had from his father; and when I had frequent accusations laid against me, he would not believe them. And Domitian, who succeeded, still augmented his respects to me; for he punished those Jews that were my accusers, and gave command that a servant of mine, who was an eunuch, and my accuser, should be punished. He also made that country I had in Judea, tax free; which is a mark of the greatest honor to him who hath it; nay, Domitia, the wife of Caesar, continued to do me kindnesses. And this is the account of the actions of my whole life: and let others judge of my character by them as they please. But to thee, O Epaphroditus, thou most excellent of men, do I dedicate all this treatise of our Antiquities; and so, for the present, I here conclude the whole.

[VI]The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 65, Paragraphs 359-367 (Whiston Translation)

… But if thou art so hardy as to affirm that thou hast written that history better than all the rest, why didst thou not publish thy history while the emperors Vespasian and Titus, the generals in that war, as well as king Agrippa and his family, who were men very well skilled in the learning of the Greeks, were all alive? for thou hast had it written these twenty years, and then mightest thou have had the testimony of thy accuracy. But now when these men are no longer with us, and thou thinkest thou canst not be contradicted, thou venturest to publish it. But then I was not in like manner afraid of my own writing, but I offered my books to the emperors themselves, when the facts were almost under men’s eyes; for I was conscious to myself, that I had observed the truth of the facts; and as I expected to have their attestation to them, so I was not deceived in such expectation. Moreover, I immediately presented my history to many other persons, some of whom were concerned in the war, as was king Agrippa, and some of his kindred. Now the emperor Titus was so desirous that the knowledge of these affairs should be taken from these books alone, that he subscribed his own hand to them, and ordered that they should be published; and for king Agrippa, he wrote me sixty-two letters, and attested to the truth of what I had therein delivered; two of which letters I have here subjoined, and thou mayst thereby know their contents. “King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth greeting: I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears to me, that thou hast done it much more accurately, and with greater care, than have the other writers. Send me the rest of these books. Farewell, my dear friend.” “King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth greeting: It seems by what thou hast written, that thou standest in need of no instruction in order to our information from the beginning. However, when thou comest to me, I will inform thee of a great many things which thou dost not know.” So when this history was perfected, Agrippa, neither by way of flattery, which was not agreeable to him, nor by way of irony, as thou wilt say, (for he was entirely a stranger to such an evil disposition of mind,) but he wrote this by way of attestation to what was true, as all that read histories may do. And so much shall be said concerning Justus, which I am obliged to add by way of digression.

[VII] Citation of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum by Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Chapter xi, § 7-8 (Translation by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html

[VIII] Citation of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum by Eusebius Pamphili, The Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 5, 143 (Translation by W.J. Ferrar)

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0882/_PX.HTM

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm

[IX] The entire passage of Origen, Commentaries on Matthew, Book X, Chapter xvii (Translation by John Patrick, D.D.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

[X] William Whiston, The Testimonies of Josephus Concerning Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, and James the Just, Vindicated, Arguments From Section VIII

(1.) When Origen introduces Josephus’s testimony concerning James the Just, that he thought the miseries of the Jews were an instance of the divine vengeance on that nation for putting James to death instead of Jesus, he uses an expression noway necessary to his purpose, nor occasioned by any words of Josephus there, that they had slain that Christ which is foretold in the Prophecies. Whence could this expression come here into Origen’s mind, when he was quoting a testimony of Josephus concerning the brother of Christ, but from his remembrance of a clause in the testimony of the same Josephus concerning Christ himself, that the prophets had foretold his death and resurrection, and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him?

(2.) How came Origen to be so surprised at Josephus’s ascribing the destruction of Jerusalem to the Jews’ murdering of James the Just, and not to their murdering of Jesus, as we have seen he was, if he had not known that Josephus had spoken of Jesus and his death before, and that he had a very good opinion of Jesus, which yet he could learn noway so authentically as from this testimony? Nor do the words he here uses, that Josephus was not remote from the truth, perhaps allude to anything else but to this very testimony before us.

(3.) How came the same Origen, upon another slight occasion, when he had just set down that testimony of Josephus concerning James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, to say, that “it may be questioned whether the Jews thought Jesus to be a man, or whether they did not suppose him to be a being of a diviner kind?” This looks so very like the fifth and sixth clauses of this testimony in Josephus, that Jesus was a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, that it is highly probable Origen thereby alluded to them: and this is the more to be depended on, because all the unbelieving Jews, and all the rest of the Nazarene Jews, esteemed Jesus with one consent, as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and it is not, I think, possible to produce any one Jew but Josephus, who, in a sort of compliance with the Romans and the Catholic Christians, who thought him a God, would say anything like his being a God.

(4.) How came Origen to affirm twice, so expressly, that Josephus did not himself own, in the Jewish and Christian sense, that Jesus was Christ, notwithstanding his quotations of such eminent testimonies out of him for John the Baptist, his forerunner, and for James the Just, his brother, and one of his principle disciples? There is no passage in all Josephus so likely to persuade Origen of this as is the famous testimony before us, wherein, as he and all the ancients understood it, he was generally called Christ indeed, but not any otherwise than as the common name whence the sect of Christians was derived, and where he all along speaks of those Christians as a sect then in being, whose author was a wonderful person, and his followers great lovers of him and of the truth, yet as such a sect as he had not joined himself to. Which exposition, as it is a very natural one, so was it, I doubt, but too true of our Josephus at that time: nor can I devise any other reason but this, and the parallel language of Josephus elsewhere, when he speaks of James as the brother, not of Jesus who was Christ, but of Jesus who was called Christ, that could so naturally induce Origen and others to be of that opinion.

[XI] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter XIII (Translation by Ernest Cushing Richardson, Ph.D.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xv.html

[XII] Excerpt from Agapius Mahbub Qustanin, Kitab al-’Unwab, (Translation by Schlomo Pines)

http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html#agapius

See also http://www.textexcavation.com/testimoniuminterface.html

[XIII] Excerpt from Michael the Syrian, World Chronicle, (Translation by Schlomo Pines)

http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html#michael

[XIV] Alice Whealey, 2000, The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy From Antiquity to the Present.

http://pace.mcmaster.ca/media/pdf/sbl/whealey2000.pdf

[XV] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book VIII, Chapter ii, (Esp. § 4-5)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiii.iii.html

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book VIII, Chapter vi, Paragraph 10

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiii.vii.html

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book VIII, Chapter ix

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiii.x.html

These excepts having been included to provide a portion of Eusebius’ own eyewitness testimony concerning the Diocletian persecutions, the reader is encouraged to read Book VIII of his Ecclesiastical History in its entirety for a province-by-province description of the manner in which these early Christians sacrificed for their convictions.

[XVI] Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 26, Verses 1-23 (New International Version)

1Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense: 2″King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, 3and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.

4″The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. 5They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me. 8Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

9″I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

12″On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

15″Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

” ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16′Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

19″So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. 21That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22But I have had God’s help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen- 23that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

[XVII] Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 18, Verses 8 (New International Version)

⁴Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

⁵When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. ⁶But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

⁷Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. ⁸Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

[XVIII] Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter xlvii (Translation by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.i.xlviii.html

See also Endnote IX, Origen, Commentaries on Matthew, Book X, Chapter xvii (Translation by John Patrick, D.D.)

[XIX] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Preface, Section 4 (Whiston Translation)

But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses our legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise, those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy. The reader is therefore to know that Moses deemed it exceeding necessary that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws to others, in the first place should consider the Divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God’s operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it; neither could the legislator himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers: I mean, unless they be taught, first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things and sees all things; and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him, but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another; but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things; for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall waive the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

[XX] The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 2, (Whiston Translation)

Now my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of his nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city we have. I was myself brought up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father and mother; and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: the first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essens, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years. So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them.

[XXI] Matthew 22:23 (New International Version)

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

Mark 12:18 (New International Version)

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

Luke 20:27 (New International Version)

Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.

Acts 4:1,2 (New International Version)

¹The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. ²They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.

Acts 23:6-8 (New International Version)

⁶Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” ⁷When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. ⁸(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)

[XXII] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter i, Sections 3 & 4, (Whiston Translation)

3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet, and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them, they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again, on account of which doctrines, they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people, and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction insomuch that the cities give great attestation to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also.

4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this, That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent; but this doctrine is received but by a few yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.

Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter viii, Paragraph 14, (Whiston Translation)

But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned. The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate, [or providence,] and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men: although fate does co-operate in every action. They say, that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the Philosophic sects among the Jews.

[XXIII] I Kings 17:17-24 (New International Version)

¹⁷ Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. ¹⁸ She said to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?”

¹⁹ “Give me your son,” Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. ²⁰ Then he cried out to the LORD, “O LORD my God, have you brought tragedy also upon this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?” ²¹ Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”

²² The LORD heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived. ²³ Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, “Look, your son is alive!”

²⁴ Then the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD from your mouth is the truth.”

[XXIV] II Kings 4:18-36 (New International Version)

¹⁸ The child grew, and one day he went out to his father, who was with the reapers. ¹⁹ “My head! My head!” he said to his father.
His father told a servant, “Carry him to his mother.” ²⁰ After the servant had lifted him up and carried him to his mother, the boy sat on her lap until noon, and then he died. ²¹ She went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, then shut the door and went out.

²² She called her husband and said, “Please send me one of the servants and a donkey so I can go to the man of God quickly and return.”

²³ “Why go to him today?” he asked. “It’s not the New Moon or the Sabbath.”
“It’s all right,” she said.

²⁴ She saddled the donkey and said to her servant, “Lead on; don’t slow down for me unless I tell you.” ²⁵ So she set out and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel.
When he saw her in the distance, the man of God said to his servant Gehazi, “Look! There’s the Shunammite! ²⁶ Run to meet her and ask her, ‘Are you all right? Is your husband all right? Is your child all right?’ ”
“Everything is all right,” she said.

²⁷ When she reached the man of God at the mountain, she took hold of his feet. Gehazi came over to push her away, but the man of God said, “Leave her alone! She is in bitter distress, but the LORD has hidden it from me and has not told me why.”

²⁸ “Did I ask you for a son, my lord?” she said. “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t raise my hopes’?”

²⁹ Elisha said to Gehazi, “Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand and run. If you meet anyone, do not greet him, and if anyone greets you, do not answer. Lay my staff on the boy’s face.”

³⁰ But the child’s mother said, “As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you.” So he got up and followed her.

³¹ Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy’s face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, “The boy has not awakened.”

³² When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. ³³ He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. ³⁴ Then he got on the bed and lay upon the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out upon him, the boy’s body grew warm. ³⁵ Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out upon him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.

³⁶ Elisha summoned Gehazi and said, “Call the Shunammite.” And he did. When she came, he said, “Take your son.” ³⁷ She came in, fell at his feet and bowed to the ground. Then she took her son and went out.

[XXV] II Kings 13:20, 21(New International Version)

²⁰ Elisha died and was buried.
Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. ²¹ Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

[XXVI] Genesis 5:24 (New International Version)

Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

II Kings 2:11, 12 (New International Version)

¹¹ As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. ¹² Elisha saw this and cried out, “My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!” And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.

[XXVII] I Samuel, Chapter 28, Verses 5-20

5 When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid; terror filled his heart. 6 He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. 7 Saul then said to his attendants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her.”

“There is one in Endor,” they said.

8 So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. “Consult a spirit for me,” he said, “and bring up for me the one I name.”

9 But the woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?”

10 Saul swore to her by the LORD, “As surely as the LORD lives, you will not be punished for this.”

11 Then the woman asked, “Whom shall I bring up for you?”

“Bring up Samuel,” he said.

12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!”

13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid. What do you see?”

The woman said, “I see a spirit coming up out of the ground.”

14 “What does he look like?” he asked.

“An old man wearing a robe is coming up,” she said.

Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”

“I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has turned away from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

16 Samuel said, “Why do you consult me, now that the LORD has turned away from you and become your enemy? 17 The LORD has done what he predicted through me. The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors-to David. 18 Because you did not obey the LORD or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the LORD has done this to you today. 19 The LORD will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The LORD will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines.”

20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, filled with fear because of Samuel’s words. His strength was gone, for he had eaten nothing all that day and night.

[XXVIII] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Chapter vi, Section 1, (Whiston Translation)

Now at this time there was one whose name was Mattathias, who dwelt at Modin, the son of John, the son of Simeon, the son of Asmoneus, a priest, of the order of Joarib, and a citizen of Jerusalem. He had five sons, John, who was called Gaddis, and Simon, who was called Matthes, and Judas who was called Maccabeus, and Eleazar who was called Auran, and Jonathan, who was called Apphus. Now this Mattathias lamented to his children the sad state of their affairs, and the ravage made in the city, and the plundering of the temple, and the calamities the multitude were under; and he told them that it was better for them to die for the laws of their country, than to live so ingloriously as they then did.

[XXIX] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter i, Section 6, (Whiston Translation)

But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say, that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

[XXX] Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIII, Chapter xi, Section 2, Paragraph 311, (Whiston Translation)

But here one may take occasion to wonder at one Judas, who was of the sect of the Essenes, and who never missed the truth in his predictions; for this man, when he saw Antigonus passing by the temple, cried out to his companions and friends, who abode with him as his scholars, in order to learn the art of foretelling things to come.

[XXXI] The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 21, Verses10 & 11 (New International Version)

¹⁰When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?”

¹¹The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”

The Gospel According to St. Mark, Chapter 16, Verse 6 (New International Version)

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 4, Verse 34 (New International Version)

“Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-the Holy One of God!”

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 19, Verse 19 (New International Version)

Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

[XXXII] Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, Book XV, Chapter xliv

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

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Life of Claudius, XXV, iii

He forbade men of foreign birth to use the Roman names so far as those of the clans were concerned. Those who usurped the privileges of Roman citizenship he executed in the Esquiline field. He restored to the senate the provinces of Achaia and Macedonia, which Tiberius had taken into his own charge. He deprived the Lycians of their independence because of deadly intestine feuds, and restored theirs to the Rhodians, since they had given up their former faults. He allowed the people of Ilium perpetual exemption from tribute, on the ground that they were the founders of the Roman race, reading an ancient letter of the senate and people of Rome written in Greek to king Seleucus, in which they promised him their friendship and alliance only on condition that he should keep their kinsfolk of Ilium free from every burden. Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. He allowed the envoys of the Germans to sit in the orchestra, led by their naïve self-confidence; for when they had been taken to the seats occupied by the common people and saw the Parthian and Armenian envoys sitting with the senate, they moved of their own accord to the same part of the theatre, protesting that their merits and rank were no whit inferior. He utterly abolished the cruel and inhuman religion of the Druids among the Gauls, which under Augustus had merely been prohibited to Roman citizens; on the other hand he even attempted to transfer the Eleusinian rites from Attica to Rome, and had the temple of Venus Erycina in Sicily, which had fallen to ruin through age, restored at the expense of the treasury of the Roman people. He struck his treaties with foreign princes in the Forum, sacrificing a pig and reciting the ancient formula of the fetial priests. But these and other acts, and in fact almost the whole conduct of his reign, were dictated not so much by his own judgment as that of his wives and freedmen, since he nearly always acted in accordance with their interests and desires.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Life of Nero, XVI, ii

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

[XXXIII] See Endnote XI, Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter XIII & Endnote XIII, Excerpt from Michael the Syrian, World Chronicle

[XXXIV] See discussion in Schurer, History of the Jewish People, 2nd Div., Vol II, Chapter 29, pp 126-187

[XXXV] The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 2, Verses 1-18 (New International Version)

¹After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem ²and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.”

³When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. ⁵“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
⁶” ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.’ ⁷Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. ⁸He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

⁹After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. ¹⁰When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. ¹¹On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. ¹²And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. ¹³When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” ¹⁴So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, ¹⁵where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” ¹⁶When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. ¹⁷Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
¹⁸“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”

[XXXVI] The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 3, Verses 1-18 (New International Version)

²²When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord” ²⁴and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” ⁵Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. ²⁶It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. ²⁷Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, ²⁸Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
²⁹“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
³⁰For my eyes have seen your salvation,
³¹which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
³²a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel.”

³³The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. ³⁴Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, ³⁵so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

³⁶There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, ³⁷and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. ³⁸Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

[XXXVII] The Book of Genesis, Chapter 49, Verse 10 (New International Version)

The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs

and the obedience of the nations is his.

II Samuel Chapter 7, Verses 8-16 (New International Version)

⁸ “Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. ⁹ I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. ¹⁰ And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning ¹¹ and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
” ‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: ¹² When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. ¹³ He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. ¹⁴ I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. ¹⁵ But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. ¹⁶ Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ “

Jeremiah Chapter 23, Verses 5 & 6 (New International Version)

⁵ “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.

⁶ In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 22, Verse 41 (New International Version)

⁴¹While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, ⁴²“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verses 1-16 (New International Version)

¹A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
²Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
³Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
⁴Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
⁵Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
⁶and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
⁷Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
⁸Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
⁹Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
¹⁰Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
¹¹and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
¹²After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
¹³Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
¹⁴Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
¹⁵Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
¹⁶and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[XXXVIII] The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 7, Verses 40-41 (New International Version)

⁴⁰On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

⁴¹Others said, “He is the Christ.”

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 9, Verses 40-41 (New International Version)

¹³They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. ¹⁴Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. ¹⁵Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.”

¹⁶Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”
But others asked, “How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?” So they were divided.

¹⁷Finally they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.”
The man replied, “He is a prophet.”

¹⁸The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. ¹⁹“Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”

[XXXIX] The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2, Verses 22-41

²²“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. ²³This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. ²⁴But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. ²⁵David said about him:
” ‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
²⁶Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
²⁷because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
²⁸You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’ ²⁹“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. ³⁰But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. ³¹Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. ³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
³⁵until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.” ‘ ³⁶“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

³⁷When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

³⁸Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

⁴⁰With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” ⁴¹Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2, Verses 12-20

. ¹²When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? ¹³The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ¹⁴You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. ¹⁵You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. ¹⁶By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.

¹⁷“Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. ¹⁸But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. ¹⁹Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, ²⁰and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-even Jesus.

The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4, Verses 8-12

⁸Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! ⁹If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, ¹⁰then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. ¹¹He is
” ‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. ¹²Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

[XL] The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 16

¹⁶and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 1, Verses 18-25

¹⁸This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. ¹⁹Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

²⁰But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ²¹She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

²²All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ²³“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”-which means, “God with us.”

²⁴When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. ²⁵But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 11, Verses 2-6

²When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples ³to ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?”

⁴Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: ⁵The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. ⁶Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”

Jesus’ response is an allusion to certain Messianic prophecies found in the Book of Isaiah:

⁴ say to those with fearful hearts,
“Be strong, do not fear;
your God will come,
he will come with vengeance;
with divine retribution
he will come to save you.”

⁵ Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

⁶ Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.
Water will gush forth in the wilderness
and streams in the desert.

-Isaiah 35:4-6

¹ The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,

-Isaiah 61:1

The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 17, Verses 13-17

¹³When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

¹⁴They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

¹⁵“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

¹⁶Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

¹⁷Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 20, Verses 17-19

¹⁷Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, ¹⁸“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death ¹⁹and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 20, Verses 17-19

¹After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

²There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. ³His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. ⁴The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

⁵The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. ⁶He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. ⁷Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Parallel and complimentary reports may be found in the other Gospel Accounts as well as the Acts of the Apostles. These books are the earliest examples of Christian literature.

[XLI] The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 26, Verses 57-66

⁵⁷Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. ⁵⁸But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

⁵⁹The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. ⁶⁰But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward ⁶¹and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ”

⁶²Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” ⁶³But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,

the Son of God.”

⁶⁴“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

⁶⁵Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. ⁶⁶What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

The Gospel According to Mark, Chapter 14, Verses 53-64

⁵³They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. ⁵⁴Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

⁵⁵The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. ⁵⁶Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

⁵⁷Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: ⁵⁸“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.’ ” ⁵⁹Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

⁶⁰Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” ⁶¹But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ,

the Son of the Blessed One?”

⁶²“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

⁶³The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. ⁶⁴“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death.

[XLII] The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 3, Verses 1 & 2

¹ Among the Pharisees there was a man named Nicodemus, who was a leader among the Jews. ² He came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Master, we know that You are a Teacher come from God, for no one could do the miracles You do unless God were with him.”

[XLIII] Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter viii, Section 3-5

3. Now, as Josephus began to hesitate with himself about Nicanor’s proposal, the soldiery were so angry, that they ran hastily to set fire to the den; but the tribune would not permit them so to do, as being very desirous to take the man alive. And now, as Nicanor lay hard at Josephus to comply, and he understood how the multitude of the enemy threatened him, he called to mind the dreams which he had dreamed in the night-time, whereby God had signified to him beforehand both the future calamities of the Jews, and the events that concerned the Roman emperors. Now Josephus was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretation of such dreams as have been ambiguously delivered by God. Moreover, he was not unacquainted with the prophecies contained in the sacred books, as being a priest himself, and of the posterity of priests: and just then was he in an ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, he put up a secret prayer to God, and said,- “Since it pleaseth thee, who hast created the Jewish nation, to depress the same, and since all their good fortune is gone over to the Romans; and since thou hast made choice of this soul of mine to foretell what is to come to pass hereafter, I willingly give them my hands, and am content to live. And I protest openly, that I do not go over to the Romans as a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee.”

4. When he had said this, he complied with Nicanor’s invitation. But when those Jews who had fled with him, understood that he yielded to those that invited him to come up, they came about him in a body, and cried out, “Nay, indeed, now may the laws of our forefathers, which God ordained himself, well groan to purpose; that God, we mean, who hath created the souls of the Jews of such a temper, that they despise death. O Josephus! art thou still fond of life? and canst thou bear to see the light in a state of slavery? How soon hast thou forgotten thyself! How many hast thou persuaded to lose their lives for liberty? Thou hast, therefore, had a false reputation for manhood, and a like false reputation for wisdom, if thou canst hope for preservation from those against whom thou hast fought so zealously, and art, however, willing to be preserved by them, if they be in earnest. But although the good fortune of the Romans hath made thee forget thyself, we ought to take care that the glory of our forefathers may not be tarnished. We will lend thee our right hand and a sword; and if thou wilt die willingly, thou wilt die as general of the Jews; but if unwillingly, thou wilt die as a traitor to them.” As soon as they said this, they began to thrust their swords at him, and threatened they would kill him, if he thought of yielding himself to the Romans.

5. Upon this, Josephus was afraid of their attacking him, and yet thought he should be a betrayer of the commands of God, if he died before they were delivered…

[XLIV] Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter viii, Section 9

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

[XLV] Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, Chapter ix, Section 5 & 6

5. But now, when the fate of Jotapata was related at Jerusalem, a great many at the first disbelieved it, on account of the vastness of the calamity, and because they had no eye-witness to attest the truth of what was related about it; for not one person was saved to be a messenger of that news, but a fame was spread abroad at random that the city was taken, as such fame usually spreads bad news about. However, the truth was known by degrees, from the places near Jotapata, and appeared to all to be too true. Yet were there fictitious stories added to what was really done; for it was reported that Josephus was slain at the taking of the city, which piece of news filled Jerusalem full of sorrow. In every house also, and among all to whom any of the slain were allied, there was a lamentation for them; but the mourning for the commander was a public one; and some mourned for those that had lived with them, others for their kindred, others for their friends, and others for their brethren, but all mourned for Josephus; insomuch that the lamentation did not cease in the city before the thirtieth day; and a great many hired mourners, with their pipes, who should begin the melancholy ditties for them.

6. But as the truth came out in time, it appeared how the affairs of Jotapata really stood; yet was it found that the death of Josephus was a fiction; and when they understood that he was alive, and was among the Romans, and that the commanders treated him at another rate than they treated captives, they were as vehemently angry at him now as they had showed their good-will before, when he appeared to have been dead. He was also abused by some as having been a coward, and by others as a deserter; and the city was full of indignation at him, and of reproaches cast upon him; their rage was also aggravated by their afflictions, and more inflamed by their ill success; and what usually becomes an occasion of caution to wise men, I mean affliction, became a spur to them to venture on further calamities, and the end of one misery became still the beginning of another; they therefore resolved to fall on the Romans the more vehemently, as resolving to be revenged on him in revenging themselves on the Romans. And this was the state of Jerusalem as to the troubles which now came upon it.

The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 75, Paragraph 416 (Whiston Translation)

…and was thence sent, together with Titus, to the siege of Jerusalem, and was frequently in danger of being put to death: while both the Jews were very desirous to get me under their power, in order to have me punished. And the Romans also, whenever they were beaten, supposed that it was occasioned by my treachery, and made continual clamors to the emperors, and desired that they would bring me to punishment, as a traitor to them:

The Life of Flavius Josephus – Autobiography, Chapter 76, Paragraph 429 (Whiston Translation)

And Domitian, who succeeded, still augmented his respects to me; for he punished those Jews that were my accusers, and gave command that a servant of mine, who was a eunuch, and my accuser, should be punished. He also made that country I had in Judea, tax free; which is a mark of the greatest honor to him who hath it; nay, Domitia, the wife of Cæsar, continued to do me kindnesses.

(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.