Peter Kirby

It is often said, such as in Fox's Book of Martyrs, that all of the apostles save John the Divine suffered martyrdom for the faith.

However, there is agreement among second century writers that Matthew was not asked to deny Christ on pain of death before a magistrate, which is the image that is conjured up by the idea of Christian martyrdom.

Hippolytus of Rome, active in the late second and early third century, writes the following in this document:

"And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia."

Steven Carr with justice refers to this passage as being the "wildest legends," but even then a story of the martyrdom of Matthew was not made up here.

Clement of Alexandria quotes Heracleon, a Valentinian expositor of the mid second century, in Stromata 4.9 as saying the following:

"Men mistake in thinking that the only confession is that made with the voice before the magistrates; there is another confession made in the life and conversation, by faith and works corresponding to the faith. The first confession may be made by a hypocrite: and it is one not required of all; there are many who have never been called on to make it, as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi [Lebbaeus]; the other confession must be made by all. He who has first confessed in his disposition of heart will confess with the voice also when need shall arise and reason require. Well did Christ use concerning confession the phrase 'in Me' (ean omologhsh en emoi), concerning denial the phrase 'Me.' A man may confess 'Him' with the voice who really denies Him, if he does not confess Him also in action; but those only confess 'in Him' who live in the confession and in corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom they embrace and Who dwells in them Who makes confession 'in them'; for 'He cannot deny Himself.' But concerning denial, He did not say whosoever shall deny 'in Me,' but whosoever shall deny 'Me'; for no one that is 'in Him' can deny Him. And the words 'before men' do not mean before unbelievers only, but before Christians and unbelievers alike; before the one by their life and conversation, before the others in words."

So, according to one of our earliest sources available, Matthew is a clear example of one who did not confess before a magistrate under inquisition. In other words, Matthew was never even arrested for the faith, let alone executed.

Matthew, one of the Twelve and attributed with a gospel, was not martyred. Even the height of martyrdom mythology in Fox admits that John the evangelist wasn't martyred. And the early church fathers indicate that Mark and Luke were followers of the apostles, not apostles and witnesses themselves.

It is clear, then, that nobody who knew Jesus and is attributed with a Gospel confessed the faith on pain of death.

best,
Peter Kirby

Wayne P

Peter,

Do we even have evidence of organized persecution of Christians, outside of Paul's account, for the first few decades after the crucifixion? Let alone a cult of martyrs? Even Nero's persecution was of finite length and probably not very heavy with victims, after all how many members could a fairly recently formed church have in this length of time?

The fact that later Christians would retroject the cult of martyrs into the first few years of the church is not surprising.

Peter Kirby

Paul's first-hand account (reflected also in Acts) shows that there is some type of "persecution" of the brothers in Judea by their fellow Jews in the early days, but Paul doesn't connect his shameful misdeeds against God's church to an order from a higher-up (Eisenman says he is Herodian, which is pretty high up in the first place, and would explain how he could be an agent of persecution). The only specific death in which Paul may be implicated is that of Stephen. It is taken as a basic datum by historians such as Paula Frederiksen that Pilate crucified Jesus but pretty much left his followers alone, at the passover (of 30 CE) and, for subsequent secular rulers in Judea, for the rest of the Second Temple period. I think that sporadic Jewish harrassment of Christ-promoters who invaded traditional worshipping centres with their message was inevitable from the first day someone confessed "Jesus Christ is Lord" and someone says "oh no you didn't." The concerted effort in the early Acts to extinguish the sect by the Sanhedrin could be an extension of the fantasy of the conviction of Jesus by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy (or, to put it neatly, "on the road to antisemitism")--but it could be just an exaggeration of understandable and hostile sectarian disputes between Sadducees (and Pharisees) and followers of the Way.

This all ties in with what on earth "Damascus" was in the mind of Paul. I have already received two essays on DJE here by Sid Green (second revision in process) and here by Richard E. Lay), both layman who have been influenced by Robert Eisenman, who hasn't gone far enough (they say) so as to amend the text of Paul's letters on this point. My present leaning on the subject, newly acquired, is that 2 Corinthians (already a composite work in my opinion) has received a secondary addition in 2 Corinthians 11:31-33. Plausibility is established by the smoothness of 12:1 following on 11:30, and fairly good substantiation is found in the implausibility of King Aretas governing Damascus in Syria and the implausibility of Paul being commissioned in Acts to pursue a religious spat with force in sovereign province so far away. Yet the word "Damascus" is a code for a home base in the so-called "Damascus Document" found at Qumran. I may eventually find myself joining hands with Renan who declared that Christianity began as "an Essenism" and with Yuri Kuchinsky who is adamant that Christians reworked the scriptures to obscure their true Jewish origins--but all it took was a single passage. Probably the Way of Christ was, in the manner of the Life of Brian, the splitting of splitters, Essenes or Qumranians or Nazaraeans or what have you who came to believe at some point that Jesus is the Messiah--why would be a good subject for a book, or at least a separate post. I am convinced that Galatians 1:17 is authentic as part and parcel of Paul's historical defense of his Gospel and his authority as an apostle. The NAB says that Paul "returned to Damascus" after going into Arabia (omitted by Acts), and this gels with the idea of a conversion experience on the road to Damascus. The reason for the return to Damascus is that it is an importent centre for the church of God, where it is appropriate for Paul to spend his first three years before visiting the apostles before him in Jerusalem. In a sentence, Paul was a Herodian using his power to persecute the wayward Essenes, from whom a splinter sect called the Nazaraeans emerged and developed into a belief in a Jesus Messiah, Paul had a sudden conversion experience for some psychological reason while on the way to Damascus, but Paul remained within the orbit of the Nazaraeans at Damascus for three years--pre Christian Nazaraeans or post Easter Nazaraeans I know not--but eventually Paul gets the idea to spread the message to the ends of the earth, as single handedly bringing about the parousia of the Lord by bringing the Messiah to the Gentiles as the scriptures allude, so Paul gets the basics on the earlier JC-promoters in Jerusalem expecting Jesus to come back there soon, and Paul travels throughout Syria and Asia Minor and Greece attempting to build new foundations, carefully planning his visit to Rome and mayhaps even Spain so that eventually Christ will come and God will be all in all. This Paul who is a strict Herodian converted into an eschatological fanatic makes sense to me, and that's more than I can say for some alternative understandings of Paul's call, as though Paul decided on the road to Damascus he could swindle a few folks by hawking the strictly Jewish Ebionitic sect as a product for the Gentiles or as though Jesus really did hang around in the atmosphere for a few years so that he could make sure nobody misunderstood his "clear" intention to bring his good news to the pagans. (But again the particulars are up for grabs, as I've worked this out at the time of posting.)

I went off on a tangent, and now I need to go to bed. At least I gave a good runthrough some thoughts on Paul's persecution. I may attempt to expound on Roman persecution in the first two centuries at a later time--though I will say that in general you are most correct. See "Hebrews" in the 50s or 60s saying that they have not yet suffered unto death, for example. Paul is no evidence for Roman persecution of Christians on any systematic level (though certainly some imprisonments of Paul as a ringleader--most likely instigated by religiously motivated informants with connections). Paul does seem to be offering the masses an alternative to the imperial cult with his "one lord" Jesus, a mild and gentle redeemer, and this could have been viewed with some suspicion by Roman authority. Yet in the first century, the first time that Christians were killed in groups was under the villainous Nero (in Rome in the 60s, see 1 Clement for the death of Peter and Paul), and the first time that Christians were persecuted in a way that was organized by the emperor over a wide area were in the waning years of the crazed emperor Domitian (most clearly evident in the Apocalypse of John of Patmos, a genuine document of 90-96, and more subtle indications elsewhere)--contra those who attempt to remove the Domitian persecution from the history books. Still in the third century Origen can say that the martyrs were easily numbered, yes it's apologetic but still, Origen is not given to lying. Yet in the Epistle to Diognetus we find already Christians saying that the faith grows stronger as confessors are killed. I think that a "cult of the martyr" began at the latest when Peter and Paul were killed in the Neronian massacre. The apologetic value of "we are so meek and mild who endure persecution unto death--look at our glorious witnesses the blessed Peter and Paul!" would be perceived within the hour...if not hoped for by a crazed fanatic (cf. Ignatius). (Yes I think that the statement "Peter was never in Rome" is a combination of skeptical speculation and Protestant bias. It can't be proven, except that everybody near the time said it, and it makes sense that one who could travel to Corinth could also be in the capital, where all things shameful gathered and take vogue in the phrase of Tacitus. The idea of Peter as a "founder" of the church at Rome, in conjunction with Paul, is clearly disproven by the epistle of Paul to the Romans. Peter and Paul, who are not enemies in the epistles of Paul, both happened to be preaching in Rome at the time, and Nero who had found his scapegoat in the hated loons called Xians could not pass up the opportunity to arrest them and make a fine public display. Whether they were killed by crucifixion or beheading or whatever I don't know--but I do know they were not thrown into the Coliseum, which was not built at that time.) The Gospel of Mark intimates that a connection perceived of the First Jewish Revolt could have been a cause of Christians being arraigned before magistrates, though how long such a suspicion lasted I do not know. "The Martyrs" is a big subject that would be covered in a whole course in a theological seminary.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Excuse the stream of consciousness writing above. I have to get some sleep. Contra the earlier statement, all of the above is up for grabs. Some of it might be useful in the hypothesis-forming stage.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

I feel obligated to warn the readers of what I've already told you: Sid Green was patently dishonest in his other essay, and generally isn't familiar with the Scrolls. In my opinion, he has lied.

Here's what Sid Green said:

The reference given is Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p64.

Here's what Fitzmyer said on p64:

Here's what he said on p.56

Here's what he said on p.57

Here's what he said 8 years later, in the 2000 book The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins:

Either Green is citing books he hasn't read, or intentionally misrepresenting Fitzmyer. As to his lack of familiarity on the Scrolls, as we've discussed, my response is forthcoming.

On the subject of 2 Corinthians, Essenes, and interpolations, Joseph Fitzmyer has argued at length that 2Cor.6.14-7.1 is an Essene interpolation.

Is it a code name? Qumran was once under Syrian control. Could be that they just considered it Damascus. Could be that the community started in the real Damascus. We quite simply don't have enough information to be sure.

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to agree with you--the CD means "Qumran" when it says Damascus. The clincher for this, in my opinion, is that "Damascus" isn't important anywhere else. The CD, presumably, was meant to apply to those living outside the community at Qumran, those living at "Damascus" don't need to be told of it--to them it's just "the congregation."

But I wouldn't bank on it.

How would you reconcile the fact that seemingly everyone in early Christianity evangelized with the absolute absence of missionary documents among the DSS? The acceptance of outsiders with "hatred for the sons of darkness?" In all the disputes Paul had, no one ever seems to tell him not to seek converts--indeed, even his opponent Peter was "an apostle to the circumcised."

There is no indication that any Essene, anywhere, ever evangelized. They weren't waiting for the Gentiles to turn to YHWH, a la Paul--they weren't even waiting for sons of darkness to come to the light--they were waiting for everyone but themselves to be destroyed. This is a tremendous divergence, and one I've yet to see addressed in any "early Christians were Essenes" argument.

There are, of course, a great many other divergences. But this is the clincher, if I had to pick one. Another tough one to follow is the fact that all of the Essene texts are thought to have been written in Judea, at Qumran or Jerusalem. No gospel was written there. This makes direct dependence tough to lobby for.

I'd be inclined to agree with Morton.

I see you've adapted Green's tendency to refer to it as "The Way" when likening Christianity to the Essenes. You might be interested to know that Acts never uses "the Way" in the same sense it's used at Qumran--the dualism is absent from Acts. Where is the corresponding "Way of Injustice"?

There are, of course, two other early Christian documents that contain the dichotomous "ways"similar to Qumran--Hebrews and the Didache. Neither are quite exact--it's much softer in Christian literature--but they're close enough to provide parallels without engaging in parallelomania. I give, briefly, my opinion on how that came to be.

If the Pharisees were characterized by the Law, and the Sadducees by the Temple, the Essenes were characterized by the end. Eschatology fairly permeates an astonishing number of their texts. If there's any sect Jewish-Christians would have had luck evangelizing to, it's them. I think, thus, that Hebrews is written to Essene converts, perhaps by an Essene convert. I think the Didache was written at a point when Essene converts who still identified with, or at least strongly remembered, their Essene roots were plentiful. To the list I add John, who I don't think was quite an Essene (like Luke with "the Way" in Acts, John misuses terms entirely too frequently to have come from Qumran), but I do think he was familiar with and influenced by their library.

What of contentions that the Herodians were the Essenes? The term being used for them because of the favor they had garnered from Herod.

If the two were separate, and Herodian did refer to the family of Herod, you need to explain why the sudden animosity. Herod liked the Essenes.

As I've mentioned to you, I'm moving and my books are packed, so I apologize for being unable to get to the rest of your post until I'm done tomorrow. I had enough notes kicking around to get this far.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

Oops! I almost missed one!

Why would Paul be converted on the road to Damascus with Damascus being Qumran? There's no indication that any of the other apostles were there--they were in Jerusalem.

So who was at Qumran to convert Paul? And why were they still there? Christianity might be viewed--at best--as you have termed it, a "splitter" from the Essenes. But all the Essene texts indicate that any splitters were promptly ejected from the Community "to return no more."

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree that Paul didn't mean Damascus in Syria. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he therefore meant Damascus in the same sense as the Essenes. It's not as though we're faced with a dichotomy.

My two cents, for what they're worth:

It's important to remember, with suggestions such as you've outlined, that the foundation is what needs to be solid. If you keep building speculations on speculations, one tends to forget how speculative it was at the outset (this, incidentally, is my chief caveat with Robert Eisenman--everything is built on such specious grounds, but the more you read, the more you forget how specious those grounds were).

I'd suggest shoring things up before you make Essene-Christian Messianism "a good subject for a book, or at least a separate post." I'm reminded of an article I once read about John the Baptist and why he left Qumran. Great article, as long as you forget that it hasn't been established that John was at Qumran in the first place. Or of the countless essays and books about Mary Magdalene the whore. And so on.

Regards,
Rick

Wayne P

Thank you Peter for the post, it was very informative and gave me many, many things to think about.

Three quick questions. You said,

So then you agree with Maccoby and think that Paul was NOT a Pharisee? Is this the consensus of most scholars these days?

Second, would it be so strange if Paul had decided that he could make a good living introducing a new and novel religion to the jaded and eager for novelty citizens of the empire? That it had ties to the ancient Jews would make it just that much more exotic and exciting for them. Wasn't this a time when many different cults and religious practices were springing up all over the Neat East? Many evangelists, even today, are just in it for the living it provides.