GakuseiDon

One thing I'm interested in is what the early apologists assumed their audience either knew or had available. Justin's two Apologies were addressed to the Roman Emperor and Senate of his day, and he hints at the expectation that they had either read or could readily access Christian (and other) materials.

From Justin's First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings...

And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch...

Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea...

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body"...

... after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him... And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils... And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive... And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies... I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate...

Justin's Second Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ndapology.html

A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavoured to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ... [he] brought an accusation against her, affirming that she was a Christian. And she presented a paper to thee, the Emperor, requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs, and afterwards to make her defence against the accusation, when her affairs were set in order. And this you granted...

And we therefore pray you to publish this little book, appending what you think right, that our opinions may be known to others, and that these persons may have a fair chance of being freed from erroneous notions and ignorance of good...

And I despised the wicked and deceitful doctrine of Simon of my own nation. And if you give this book your authority, we will expose him before all, that, if possible, they may be converted. For this end alone did we compose this treatise...

DCHindley

All we can for sure say is that Justin mentions some sort of "Acts" of Pilate in the following places in his Apology:

The Apology of Justin 1:35 And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts (ακτων) of Pontius Pilate.

The Apology of Justin 1:48 There are these words: "At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

I am not so sure he is referring to genuine published Acts (spurious or real), which Pilate would write up periodically, in Latin (where they would be called commentarii), to send to Rome for review by Tiberius' chief of staff.

He may also have been bluffing: "Go ahead, check Pilate's commentarii if you don't believe Christ was crucified, had his garments gambled for, or healed the lame and blind, just as sacred scripture foretold!" For all we know, Justin may have actually believed this was all on record. If it was true, as he believed, how could it NOT have been reported to the emperor?

Tertullian seems to be aware of something purporting to be a fabulous report about Jesus by Pilate to Tiberius. So fabulous, in fact that Tiberius is converted to a believer in Christ's divinity, and recommends that the Roman Senate affirms it as well:

Tertullian Apology 5:1 To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Aurelius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence (what is the Latin here?) from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.

Tertullian Apology 21:1 All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word (what is the Latin word here?) of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

This fanciful story, which sounds like a Christian fairy tale to me, Tertullian took very seriously. Chances are, it was created on account of Justin's brag that the whole story MUST be somewhere in the genuine Acts of Pilate, which Pilate would certainly have been sending to Rome periodically. OR, Tertullian had spun the whole affair on the basis of Justin's rhetorical bluff!

Not to be outdone, Eusebius even gilds Tertullian's Lilly, adding even more details to bolster its credibility:

Church History of Eusebius, II.ii. AND when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.

They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate, but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.

These things are recorded by Tertullian, a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, he writes as follows: "But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree n that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus. And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported (αγγελθεντος) to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians."

When Eusebius says "they say" it sounds to me like Eusebius hadn't himself actually seen this miraculous account, but is referring to the "accounts" of Tertullian and Justin.

Eusebius also mentions certain Acts of Pilate that were published in the reign of emperor Maximin around 311 CE, in two separate places:

Church History of Eusebius I.ix.2-4 The same writer (Josephus), in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius ... Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea [Ant. 18:32-35], and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius [Ant. 18:89].

Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts (^cυπομνήματα) against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign [ca 21 CE]; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Antiquities of the Jews 18:32-35 32 ... Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, ... 33 upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. 34 This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest: which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; 35 and, when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor [i.e. in the 12th year of Tiberius, 26 CE].

Antiquities of the Jews 18:89 89 So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he dared not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.

I think this is where maryhelena will likely jump in, as Robert Eisler had proposed that our copies of Josephus had a corrupted numeral in Ant 18:35. I am unwilling to look it up in Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist as it is late and Eisler can be a pain to search through, but I believe Eisler's suggestion was that Pilate was actually appointed after Gratus served only four years (i.e. 19 CE). Eusebius's comment "if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed" suggests that not everyone accepted the reading that yields 26 CE for the appointment of Pilate, or there was doubt about the accuracy of his sources in this case. I suppose there would then have to be another error in the number of years Pilate governed from 10 to 16 years, or something along that line.

The other account is here:

Church History of Eusebius IX.iv-vi iv ... Priests for the images [erected to emperor Maximin as a god by the Greek cities of the provinces] were then appointed in the cities, and besides them high priests by Maximinus himself. The latter were taken from among those who were most distinguished in public life and had gained celebrity in all the offices which they had filled; and who were imbued, moreover, with great zeal for the service of those whom they worshiped.

Indeed, the extraordinary superstition of the emperor, to speak in brief, led all his subjects, both rulers and private citizens, for the sake of gratifying him, to do everything against us, supposing that they could best show their gratitude to him for the benefits which they had received from him, by plotting murder against us and exhibiting toward us any new signs of malignity. v. [These then,] Having therefore forged Acts (^cυπομνήματα) of Pilate and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor's approval to the whole of the empire subject to him, with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, be studied and learned by heart.

Now there are acts written by the Saviour himself! It just gets better and better! Eusebius may very well be right that these were forged to please Maximin. Setting the account in a year when Pilate was not even Prefect of Judea would suggest forgery. But maybe the authorities combed through Pilates bona-fide commentarii but couldn't find anything approximating the Christian story. They then chose the next closest story, from 21 CE, and used it without attempting to reconcile it to Josephus. Maybe it is reconciled to another account that places Pilate's appointment earlier than our current text of Josephus. Then again, Eusebius may just have been explaining away something that was hard to bear if true.

So that Roger feel not slighted, Eusebius goes on to relate another case of fabricated slanders:

While these things were taking place, another military commander, whom the Romans call Dux (a frontier commander), seized some infamous women (i.e., prostitutes) in the market-place at Damascus in Phoenicia, and by threatening to inflict tortures upon them compelled them to make a written declaration that they had once been Christians and that they were acquainted with their impious deeds,--that in their very churches they committed licentious acts; and they uttered as many other slanders against our religion as he wished them to. Having taken down their words in writing, he communicated them to the emperor, who commanded that these documents also should be published in every place and city. vi. Not long afterward, however, this military commander became his own murderer (i.e. was forced to commit suicide by the emperor for some unrelated reason) and paid the penalty for his wickedness.

I don't see, however, where it is implied that the pagan population would know the opposite would be true of those "Christian" girls.

Amen :constern01:

DCH

DCHindley

DCH,

"You know nothing at all!" (Jn 11:49)

In case any of your ignorant minions or foes on this board want to argue that because Maximin's eager clients couldn't find any mention of Jesus in Pilate's commentarii, means that he must be mythical, I say this:

Even an ignorant fool like you must know that there may well not be any record of Jesus in Pilates commentarii. Philo "writes that Pilate feared a delegation that the Jews might send to Tiberius protesting the gold-coated shields, because 'if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty.'" (On The Embassy of Gauis Book XXXVIII 299-305).

Oh my, Mr DCH (if that's your real name), Philo is not anywhere thought of as contaminated by the Christian scribes and "philosophers" who preserved his works!

Your evil twin,

Skippy

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley et al.

Good review and tracing of the evidence.

May I suggest that Justin Martyr's Apology is a rhetorical exercise. It was not a delivered speech or meant to be delivered. Such a speech would have enraged any emperor of the time and caused a blood bath of Christians. It is would be the equivalent of walking into the parliment of Iran or Saudi Arabia and delivering an address to the President saying that Muhammad was a lying sack of dung and everybody should immediately convert to Christianity or end up in hell.

As a rhetorical exercise, the point was not to quote sources from history, but to make your argument appear better. Rhetorical exercises were not judged on their ability to persuade. They were judged more on "the cleverness or novelty of what they said or the ornamentation of their style." (Classical Rhetoric by George Alexander, pg. 46) It would have been perfectly fine to mention non-existent facts or works to back up your argument in such a work.

The fact that Eusebius mentions a work by Pilate being circulated in the Fourth Century should not mislead us into believing that an earlier book existed. Of some 98 fabricated book titles in Harry Potter stories by J.K. Rowlings, three were later turned into real book titles:

* Quidditch Through the Ages by Kennilworthy Whisp
* Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them by Newt Scamander
* The Tales of Beedle the Bard is a book of children's stories which is mentioned in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.


In the novel "Cat's Cradle," Kurt Vonnegut references many quotes from the "Books of Bokonon." "The Books of Bokonon" did not exist. They are simply created to add realism to the novel. There is now a website called "The Books of Bokonon," which has all the quotes from Vonnegut together in one place.

In the movie "Paris When it Sizzles," William Holden and Audrey Hepburn are writing the script for a movie named "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower." There was no such movie by that name. However, there is now a successful fashion blog on the internet by that name.

In the book Gargantua and Pantaqruel by Francois Rabelais there are over 100 fictional books named (including my favorite "Why Monkeys Smack Their Lips When They Pray").

On Wikipedia, one may find a list of about 1500 fictional books, under the title "List of Fictional Books"
These books are all mentioned within works of literature.
"The Giant Rat of Sumatra by Dr. John Watson" mentioned in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire has since been made into a book.

One can also find about 500 fictional books from non-print sources.

Some of my favorites are
To Serve Man, an alien cookbook from The Twilight Zone
A Coffee Table Book About Coffee Tables by Cosmo Kramer from Seinfeld
Love Hurts by Catherine Tramell (under the pseudonym Catherine Woolf), from Basic Instinct.
Love Means Always Having to Say You're Sorry by Alex Sheldon, from Alex and Emma
Higgins' Universal Language by Henry Higgins, from My Fair Lady

It seems odd that both Pontius Pilate and Tiberius would become Christians, without any historian but Eusebius reporting it, but in the fanciful world of the Eusebean/Christian Imagination anything is possible.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

maryhelena

Daniel Schwartz has a chapter on Pilate’s appointment in his book: “Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office (or via: amazon.co.uk)”. He discusses Eisler’s position on this issue. From page 182 - from the contents menu.

Unfortunately, no book view on amazon but Google Books view allows a considerable reading. Some pages missing though. It looks to me that Schwartz might be going with an earlier date for Pilate - or at least leaves the issue open.....


http://books.google.com/books?id=rd5...page&q&f=false

DCHindley

mh,

Thanks for that link! I might have to order that book from Inter Library Loan.

Yes, sure does look as though he is quite open to a possible redating of the appointment of Pilate after the 4th year of Gratus.

It is nice to see a qualified academic picking up on the same issues as I did. The link summarized Eisler's position pretty well, saving me the trouble. Eisler is extremely difficult to browse through. He's more verbose than me and Stephen Huller put together, runs off on tangents, and the index to MJ&JtB is piss poor.

DCH

aa5874

But, Justin Martyr appear to be ATTEMPTING to STOP a preconceived BLOODBATH.

"First Apology" 1-2 Based on Justin Martyr it was the WANTON abuse and even KILLING of Christians that caused him to write his petition.

Justin Martyr HIMSELF claimed he was "wantonly ABUSED"

Justin Martyr wants the HATRED and ABUSE to end and that is why he claimed he wrote to the Emperor and Senate.

But, There seemed to be a complete LACK of understanding of who Christians were which supports the notion that the Jesus cult STARTED sometime in the 2nd century.

It is very SIGNIFICANT to understand that Justin Martyr implied that the Roman Emperor and Senate would have NOT been AWARE of the Jesus cult and EXPLAINED in great detail virtually everything about the Jesus cult.

Justin Martyr told them about the birth, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

Justin Martyr told them that the Jesus cult worshiped on Sundays.

He told the Roman Emperor and the Senate that the Memoirs of the Apostles
was read in the Churches.

He told them about the Ritual of the Eucharist.

Justin Martyr even told the Romam Emperor and Senate of so-called Heretics and those who were NOT really Christians.

It would appear that the Jesus cult was a FAIRLY RECENT cult and was perhaps STARTED sometime around the REIGN of the SAME EMPEROR ANTONINUS to whom Justin Martyr wrote.

mountainman

Hey vid,

There are three separate "Acts of Pilate"
that up front require disambiguation:

(1) The very early christian "Acts of Pilate"
(2) The early fourth century pagan "Acts of Pilate"
(3) The late fourth century christian "Acts of Pilate"

Justins is of the FIRST KIND.
Its a common forgery from big E.

The more interesting discussion is
to be found in the attempt to
disambiguate (2) and (3).

My idea is that (3) does not exist.
The text we have in front of us
is in fact the pagan version
but it was not circulated in the empire
under Maximus but at Nicaea by
the Panhellenic resistance.

Here is why Eusebius's calls the text .... "filled with BLASPHEMY":

Constantine had just utterly destroyed the most ancient
and highly revered temples to Asclepius at Aegae and elsewhere.

Jesus and Asclepius were politically opposed.
Apollonius and Jesus were politically dismabiguated - see Eusebius.
The books of Apollonius were preserved at the temples of Asclepius.
Constantine destroyed the temples of Asclepius and with them
the books of Apollonius of Tyana, an ex Asclepian priest.
Asclepius had healed by Apollo for centuries.
But Jesus was the new and strange dead Jewish healer.
And Jesus did not need some snake charmer.

So WTF is Pontius Pilate doing standing
up in front of the Jews saying that
our boy Jesus heals by the power
of Asclepius? Naughty naughty.

aa5874

Justin Martyr's writings are NOT from BIG E or his ACCOMPLICES.

Once you read and analyze BIG E's "Church History" you will KNOW BIG E's DNA, FINGERPRINTS, ACCOMPLICES and MODUS OPERANDI.

These are some of the writings of BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES, wholly or in part:

Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Rome and Origen.

It was Justin Martyr who FIRST RECOGNIZED that there was NO Church History and that Jesus was just like the MYTHS of the Greeks and Romans.

And these are some writings that are NOT from BIG E and his Accomplices:

Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Tatian and Arnobius.

"Church History" contains virtually ALL the EVIDENCE of the Fraud and how it was done.

It is HISTORY, actual DOCUMENTED history, of a FRAUD.

avi

Thank you. Well written. I liked your approach, and your argument. Well done!

I have one question, posed in order to learn something, not to dispute your logical conclusion of a second century origin to the myth:

How can one concurrently commence a new religion, and at the same time, appreciate the unwelcome presence of heretics?

To my way of thinking, admittedly impoverished, the notion of a heretic requires a lot of time, in this case, years, since the only modems available for communication in those ancient times, relied upon twisted copper telephone cables, rather than the much faster fiber optic which we employ today. Wouldn't one expect that multiple heretics would arise decades after an initial proclamation of the new religion, rather than within just a few months/couple of years?

One imagines the time needed to publish, even today, a simple pamphlet, let alone one claiming to be the written word of god. In those days, the creation and distribution of papyrus documents would have been slow, tedious, arduous work. For multiple heretics to arise, one would need gathering places where the believers could be recruited to each of the charlatans' lair, and then, they would, in turn, be obliged to publish their own refutations of the official dogma, and subsequently distribute those papyrus documents throughout the empire, so that these "false tracts" could ultimately be confronted by the orthodox writers....

If Justin Martyr is describing "heretics", I suppose that would be evidence arguing against a second century origin of the religion, and favoring a much earlier creation. How many decades would be required to create both a sizable base of support for, and written documents outlining the derivative dogma of, heretics, for example, Valentinus, or Marcion?

avi