Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-28-2009, 04:32 PM

Arthur Ogden published a small tract, which appears to argue against the historicity of the alleged Domitian Persecution of "christians" during his rule (81-96 CE). It is located here.

Ogden does not make mention of the Acts of John the Theologian, where we find an explicit reference to the Domitian persecution in the text of this new testament apocryphal tractate. (See Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian). The relevant text is presented in the following quote, where, having been kicked out of the city (of Rome?) by Domitian, the Jews write a book to the emperor

Quote:

And when Vespasian was dead, his son Domitian, having got possession of the kingdom. along with his other wrongful acts, set himself also to make a persecution against the righteous men. For, having learned that the city was filled with Jews, remembering the orders given by his father about them, he purposed casting them all out of the city of the Romans. And some of the Jews took courage, and gave Domitian a book, in which was written as follows:--

O Domitian, Caesar and king of all the world, as many of us as are Jews entreat thee, as suppliants we beseech of thy power not to banish us from thy divine and benignant countenance; for we are obedient to thee, and the customs, and laws, and practices, and policy, doing wrong in nothing, but being of the same mind with the Romans. But there is a new and strange nation, neither agreeing with other nations nor consenting to the religious observances of the Jews, uncircumcised, inhuman, lawless, subverting whole houses, proclaiming a man as God, all assembling together (1) under a strange name, that of Christian. These men reject God, paying no heed to the law given by Him, and proclaim to be the Son of God a man born of ourselves, Jesus by name, whose parents and brothers and all his family have been connected with the Hebrews; whom on account of his great blasphemy and his wicked fooleries we gave up to the cross. And they add another blasphemous lie to their first one: him that was nailed up and buried, they glorify as having risen from the dead; and, more than this, they falsely assert that he has been taken up by (2) clouds into the heavens.

At all this the king, being affected with rage. ordered the senate to publish a decree that they should put to death all who confessed themselves to be Christians. Those, then, who were found in the time of his rage, and who reaped the fruit of patience, and were crowned in the triumphant contest against the works of the devil, received the repose of incorruption.

I dont seem to be able to find too much scholarly opinion online on this particular tractate. It does not appear listed at www.earlychristianwritings.com for example. But in the absence of other opinion it appears to me that the authors use of the term a new and strange nation looks at first sight to be distinctively "Eusebian". I could be wrong, and it is entirely coincidental. But if this is not coincidental then we have two options:

1) The author of the Acts of John the Theologian has read Eusebius, and mimics Eusebius, or

2) Eusebius used this tractate as a source (but nowhere mentions this!!!) for his assertions about Domitian, and his description of christianity as being a religion which was neither "new or strange", in addition to the concept and use of the term "nation" with respect to early christianity in the partistic literature. (See recent commentary on Eusebius' forgery of the TF, Ken Olsen, Kerry Shirts, etc)

My assessment is that Domitian never heard of "christians" and that Eusebius simply cobbled together falsities concerning this particular emperor in order to pad out his sense of historical duty.

My assessment of the tractate "The Acts of John the Theologian" is option (1) - that it was written by a polemicist as an anti-christian joke after the council of Nicaea. It too is fictional, but the narrative account mimics the Eusebian history, and escalates its improbability by exaggeration. It is the equivalent of the modern term a "spoof"..

Any thoughts on any of these issues?

Best wishes,

Pete

aa5874 · 02-28-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any thoughts on any of these issues?

Best wishes,

Pete

It is almost incredible that such a writing is considered as containing history.

The Acts of John the Theologian is just fiction-filled.

Perhaps, it can be used to show how to fake one's death or commit suicide.

And, maybe the writer was aware of the writings of Eusebius, he used the word "Polycarp".

mountainman · 03-09-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any thoughts on any of these issues?

It is almost incredible that such a writing is considered as containing history.

The Acts of John the Theologian is just fiction-filled.

In an age when we can find commmentary on practically anything related to these texts involved with "christian origins" I find it difficult to understand why I cannot find anyone making any comments whatsoever on this "Acts of John the Theologian", in which the author presents the expelled Jews of Rome writing a book to the emperor outlining how the christians - described incidentally in the very Eusebian terminology of a new and strange nation - have fabricated a story about an historical Jesus figure, his blasphemous exploits, and about their own heritage.

Peter Kirby's "Early Christian Writings" site does not mention this tractate, and neither does anyone else that I can find. This is quite remarkable. I can find no comments or notes regarding estimated chronology or authorship. Does anyone know anything at all about this text which appears well represented about the internet, but without academic comments?

Toto · 03-09-2009, 07:15 PM

Peter Kirby appears to include a mention of the Acts of John the Theologian in with the Acts of John, as does gnosis.org

From Peter Kirby's site

Quote:

A distinctly late Greek text printed by Bonnet (in two forms) as cc. 1-17 of his work tells how Domitian, on his accession, persecuted the Jews...

So your Acts of John the Theologian is "distinctly late." In fact, Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha: Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects (or via: amazon.co.uk) suggests the 15th century, although that might refer to the date of the interpolation into the older manuscript.

It's not clear what use should be made of a document that claims that John survived being boiled in oil.

mountainman · 03-09-2009, 09:26 PM

Thanks very much Toto - that was more than I turned up about this text.

One issue aside from others is that this late text could well have been the source of the christian speculation of a "christian persecution" under the Roman emperor Domitan.

On another issue, the lateness of the text suggests perhaps that the author of the text used Eusebius in describing the "new and strange nation" of the christians. As if in fact the new and strange nation of the christians was a very late new and strange nation.

mountainman · 03-09-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Peter Kirby appears to include a mention of the Acts of John the Theologian in with the Acts of John, as does gnosis.org

From Peter Kirby's site

Quote:

A distinctly late Greek text printed by Bonnet (in two forms) as cc. 1-17 of his work tells how Domitian, on his accession, persecuted the Jews...

I missed that , although the page and the translation is of "The Acts of John" from "The Apocryphal New Testament", M.R. James-Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, this entire reference was directed at "The Acts of John the Theologian":

Quote:

A distinctly late Greek text printed by Bonnet (in two forms) as cc. 1-17 of his work tells how Domitian, on his accession, persecuted the Jews. They accused the Christians in a letter to him: he accordingly persecuted the Christians. He heard of John's teaching in Ephesus and sent for him: his ascetic habits on the voyage impressed his captors. He was brought before Domitian, and made to drink poison, which did not hurt him: the dregs of it killed a criminal on whom it was tried: and John revived him; he also raised a girl who was slain by an unclean spirit.

Domitian, who was much impressed, banished him to Patmos. Nerva recalled him. The second text tells how he escaped shipwreck on leaving Patmos, swimming on a cork; landed at Miletus, where a chapel was built in his honour, and went to Ephesus.

All this is late: but an old story, known to Tertullian and to other Latin writers, but to no Greek, said that either Domitian at Rome or the Proconsul at Ephesus cast John into a caldron of boiling oil which did him no hurt. The scene of this was eventually fixed at the Latin Gate in Rome (hence the St. John Port Latin of our calendar, May 6th). We have no detailed account of this, but it is conjectured to have been told in the early part of the Leucian Acts. If so, it is odd that no Greek writer mentions it.

About that last paragraph above.
Which story known to Tertullian is being referred to here?
If the Acts of John the Theologian is very late,
how does Tertullian know anything about it?
Which Tertullian reference?

Toto · 03-10-2009, 12:04 AM

Tertullian

Quote:

'Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's[the Baptist]; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.'

Tertullian knows the story of John being plunged into boiling oil and surviving. Nothing about the Jews accusing him of inventing stuff about Jesus.

Jerome also recounts this story.

Presumably the story that Tertullian knew was the basis for the late interpolation. But we seem to have only that detail, so we don't know if the original story included the detail that you are interested in or if it referred to Christians as a new and strange nation.

mountainman · 03-10-2009, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tertullian

Quote:

'Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's[the Baptist]; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.'

Tertullian knows the story of John being plunged into boiling oil and surviving. Nothing about the Jews accusing him of inventing stuff about Jesus.

Jerome also recounts this story.

Does any other act mention John and "boiling oil"? Jerome at the end of the fourth century is aware perhaps of "The Acts of John the Theogian" if in fact, the "boiling oil" John incident is unique to that Apocryphal Act. We know that Eusebius was aware of at least one of the Acts of John. Not which one as far as I know.

Quote:

Presumably the story that Tertullian knew was the basis for the late interpolation. But we seem to have only that detail, so we don't know if the original story included the detail that you are interested in or if it referred to Christians as a new and strange nation.

Alternatively, "The Acts of John the Theologian" was authored later, and Tertullian could have been interpolated by the orthodox in order to attribute the authorship of it in the fourth century (we know many were written in the 4th CE) back into the earlier centuries.

We obviously need the manuscript tradition associated with this act. I have not been able to locate anything in this area (apart from Peter's refeence). This A distinctly late Greek text indicated a late ms, but usually in passing biblical scholars attempt to place the work in a chronological setting. Has any researcher estimated a date for this act of john the theologian?

There is a reference to Tertullian and the "burning oil" and John incident in WACE under the entry for Leucius, author of N.T. apocryphal additions

Quote:

Leucius (1), the reputed author of large apocryphal additions to the N.T. history, which originated in heretical circles, and which, though now lost, were much current in early times. The fullest account is that given by Photius (Cod. 114), who describes a book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, and purported to have been written by Leucius Charinus.

...[trimmed]...

Other evidence of Tertullian's acquaintance with Leucius is found in his story of St. John's having been cast into burning oil. Speaking of Rome he says, "Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur." What was Tertullian's authority? Now, though none of the extant fragments of Leucius relate to this, yet that these Acts contained the story is probable from the following evidence.

Jerome (vol. vii. p. 655) commenting on Matt. xx. 23 states on the authority of "ecclesiasticae historiae" that the apostle had been "missus in ferventis olei dolium, et inde ad suscipiendam coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque relegatus in Pathmos insulam." Now Abdias, whose work is notoriously based on Leucius (Hist. Ap. v. 2, Fabric. Cod. Ps. N.T. ii. 534), has "proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in 663dolio ferventis olei mergi, qui statim ut conjectus in aeneo est, veluti athleta, unctus non adustus de vase exiit." The second passage will be seen to be the original, Jerome's use of athleta receiving its explanation from Abdias. This conclusion is strengthened by another passage in Jerome (adv. Jovin. i. 26, vol. ii. 278), where, though he names Tertullian as his authority, he gives particulars not found in him, viz. the "dolium ferventis olei," and that the apostle came out fresher and more vigorous than he had entered.

We feel forced to believe that Jerome, who certainly used Leucius, found in it the statement about the boiling oil; and then there is a strong case for suspecting that this was also the authority of Tertullian. But though Tertullian names Rome as the scene of the miracle, it may be doubted whether this was so in the Greek Leucius. The mention by Abdias of a "proconsul" suggests Asia. Hippolytus, however, agrees with Tertullian in placing John at Rome (de Christo et Antic. 36). Some of the earliest Fathers who try to reconcile Matt. xx. 23 with the fact that John did not suffer martyrdom, do not mention this story of the baptism in oil (Origen, in loc. De la Rue, iii. 719) A later story makes John miraculously "drink a cup" of poison with impunity.

Toto · 03-10-2009, 12:58 AM

From post 4:

Quote:

So your Acts of John the Theologian is "distinctly late." In fact, Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha: Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects (or via: amazon.co.uk) suggests the 15th century, although that might refer to the date of the interpolation into the older manuscript.

I only did a brief search of this book on Amazon. You could look into it more there.

But I don't see where this will take you. There is evidently a medieval manuscript that is a copy of a copy of an interpolated copy, and since this is apocryphal, there was less care than usual in the copying. I don't see a way of getting back to the second century or the fourth. And I don't see a Eusebian connection.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2009, 09:26 PM	#5
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thanks very much Toto - that was more than I turned up about this text. One issue aside from others is that this late text could well have been the source of the christian speculation of a "christian persecution" under the Roman emperor Domitan. On another issue, the lateness of the text suggests perhaps that the author of the text used Eusebius in describing the "new and strange nation" of the christians. As if in fact the new and strange nation of the christians was a very late new and strange nation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.