Supplementary Notes
Supplementary Note 1—Source footnote 20
O. Pfleiderer (Religionsphilosophie, 3rd ed., Berlin, 1896, pp. 493 sq.) says: “All new ideas and ideals that have stirred the world originated with individuals, who did not arbitrarily invent these ideas and ideals, nor discover them by laborious reflection, as scientific truths are discovered by investigation; but received them by way of that involuntary intuition which is vouchsafed also to the creative artist, and which is everywhere the prerogative of the ‘genius’ to whom the nature of things and the destiny of mankind lie open. But as every revelation is certainly first of all a personal experience, received and shaped in the depths of individual genius, so the thousandfold echo which its communication awakens in others, betrays the fact that it [the revelation] merely constitutes the correct expression of what slumbered unconsciously or was darkly felt in the souls of others. Not as if revelation for this reason was to be conceived as a product of the common consciousness of the age, i.e., of the ruling opinions of the majority. These opinions, on the contrary, are invariably opposed by the prophet of higher truth, as innumerable examples from the Old Testament to the present day show. Nevertheless, in all such cases the revelation of the religious genius is the expression of that which the noblest men of his age have felt and yearned for, the unveiling of their own better self, the fulfilment of their own highest hope. It is from this source that the revelation coming from any one individual derives its power to draw men together into communities. By testifying in word and deed to the divine truth which has been revealed to him, and which controls his whole personal life, the prophet attracts others by the impression of his personality, and evokes in them the same spiritual experiences, inspires them with enthusiasm for the same ideals, and thus institutes a higher community life, a congregation of faithful believers, in which the revelation of one man becomes the common property of many.”—And again, p. 497: “If we consider, on the one hand, that all, even the highest religious phenomena participate in the relativity to which all human things are subject, and, on the other hand, that wherever, even on the lowest level, men rise above the world of sense to the idea of a higher, unifying power, some religious truth is revealed, we shall not be able to admit the existence of a specific opposition between natural and revealed religion, but are rather compelled to regard the entire history of religion as divine revelation, everywhere naturally communicated in the form of the human consciousness of God. ‘Natural’ and ‘revealed,’ therefore, are not two different kinds of religion, but the two aspects of every religion,—the one the divine principle and the other the human appearance. … From this point of view, it is true, every stage of religious and moral development has a relative right, in so far, namely, as it serves a useful purpose in its own place as a link in the evolution of the human race; however, not all forms have an equal right, but they are divided by essential differences. If the truth of a higher stage has become manifest, it brings to light the imperfection, and therefore the relative untruth of the lower stages, and these latter, no matter how long they may support themselves externally, are destined to disappear, or rather to be absorbed into the higher stage.” Cfr. A. Sabatier, Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion Based on Psychology and History, (English tr.), New York, 1907, pp. 33 sqq.
Supplementary Note 2—Source footnote 148
1 Cor. XI, 23 sq.; 1 Cor. XV, 5 sqq. “The allusions to the earthly life of Jesus are as numerous in Paul’s Epistles as in the other Apostolic writings, outside of the Gospels, whose object was precisely to narrate it. Proportionally there are even fewer allusions to the facts of the Gospels in the Apocalypse, in the Catholic Epistles, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Acts of the Apostles than in the letters of the Doctor of the Gentiles. Let us judge of this by the following brief sketch. Before coming to this earth, Christ pre-existed in the form of God (Phil. II, 6); He was rich with all the riches of Heaven (2 Cor. VIII, 9). At the end of the providential preparations for the event and at the time indicated by the divine decrees, He, the Son of God, is sent by His Father to accomplish the work of salvation (Gal. IV, 4; Rom. VIII, 3; III, 25 f.; V, 7). Jesus is the descendant of Abraham (Gal. III, 16), the Son of David (Rom. I, 3; XV, 12; 2 Tim. II, 8), the glory of the Hebrew people (Rom. IX, 5). He is born of a woman under the régime of the Law (Gal. IV, 4); He lives in the midst of Jews (Rom. XV, 8), and Jerusalem is the centre of His Church (Gal. I, 17; Rom. XV, 19–27). He is truly man, in all respects like ourselves (Rom. V, 15; 1 Cor. XV, 21 f.; 1 Tim. II, 5), yet without sin (2 Cor. V, 21). He has brethren according to the flesh (1 Cor. IX, 5), one of whom, James, is designated by name (Gal. I, 19; II, 29). In order that they should collaborate with Him and continue His work, He surrounds Himself with Apostles (1 Cor. IX, 5, 14), to the number of twelve (1 Cor. XV, 5); three among them, Peter, James, and John, are expressly mentioned (Gal. I, 18 f.; II, 9); but Cephas-Peter occupies the highest rank among them (1 Cor. IX, 5). In confiding to the Apostles the care of preaching His doctrine, He gives them the right to live by the Gospel (1 Cor. IX, 15) and the power to work miracles (2 Cor. XII, 19). After having led on earth a life of poverty (2 Cor. VIII, 9), subjection (Phil. II, 8), obedience (Rom. V, 19), and holiness (Rom. I, 4), He voluntarily gives Himself up to His enemies (Gal. I, 4; II, 20), the Jews, who put Him to death. The institution of the Eucharist is related by Paul with more precision of detail than in the Gospel. Paul mentions especially the treason of that tragic night, which recalls the nox erat of St. John. If the Passion is described on broad lines, we know that, in speaking to catechumens, the Apostle made a striking picture of it (Gal. III, 1). He tells us often of the cross (1 Cor. II, 2 etc.), the blood (Rom. III, 25 etc.), and even of the nails (Col. II, 12). The executioners of Jesus are the Jews (1 Thess. II, 15) and the princes of this world (Eph. I, 7; II, 13). The Passion took place towards Easter, at the time of the azymoi (1 Cor. V, 6–8), under Pontius Pilate (1 Tim. VI, 2). The burial is not forgotten (1 Cor. XV, 4), because it gives to Baptism its figurative value (Rom. VI, 4; Col. II, 12). But Paul lays more stress on the Resurrection on the third day and on the different manifestations of the risen Christ (1 Cor. XV, 4–7). Jesus Christ has ascended into Heaven (Eph. IV, 8–10), is seated on the right hand of the Father (Eph. I, 20; II, 6), and will return to judge the living and the dead (1 Thess. I, 10) … Such is an epitome of Paul’s picture of Jesus. It is more than a sketch; it is a lifelike portrait drawn with firm lines.” (F. Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, Vol. II, pp. 154 sq.)
Supplementary Note 3—Source footnote 190
Ep., l. x, 96 (al. 97): “Adfirmabant autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum adpellati abnegarent. Quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium; … Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam, immodicam: ideoque dilata cognitione ad consulendum te decucurri. Visa est enim mihi res digna consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium numerum. Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, vocantur in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam atque agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est; quae videtur sisti et corrigi posse.”—The reply of the Emperor was, under the circumstances, explicit and reasonable. “You have adopted the proper course, my dear Pliny, in examining into the cases of those who have been denounced to you as Christians, for no hard and fast rule can be laid down to meet a question of such wide extent. The Christians are not to be hunted out; if they are brought before you and the offense is proved, they are to be punished, but with this reservation,—that if anyone denies that he is a Christian and, by offering prayers to our deities, makes it clear that he is not, then he is to be pardoned because of his recantation, however suspicious his past conduct may have been. But pamphlets published anonymously must not carry any weight whatever, no matter what the charge may be; for they are not only a precedent of the very worst type, but they are not in consonance with the spirit of our age.” These two letters are quoted in summary by Tertullian (cfr. Eusebius, H. E., III, 33), so that, although they formed part of the imperial archives, they must have been made public by that time. In view of their obvious interest and importance they have attracted the critical attention of almost every historian of the period. A thick cloud of speculation, controversy, and varied interpretation has gathered round them; almost every syllable has been microscopically examined, but their authenticity is no longer disputed. (See A. L. Maycock in the Catholic World, Jan., 1928, Vol. CXXVI, No. 754, pp. 441 sqq.)
Supplementary Note 4—Source footnote 212
The passage concerning Christ in the ancient Slavic translation of the Aramaic original of the Jewish War (Bk. II, ch. ix, between 4 and 5) is as follows: “At that time also a man rose, if it be right to call him a man, his nature and form were indeed human, but his appearance more than human, his works indeed were divine, he worked miracles astounding and mighty. Hence it is impossible for me to call him a man. But again, having regard to things in general, I would not call him an angel either. And all he worked through some invisible power, he worked by word and command. Some said of him that he was our first lawgiver, risen from the dead and [that he] showed forth many healings and achievements. But others thought that he was sent by God. But he went counter in many things to the law, and he did not keep the Sabbath according to the custom of the fathers. However, on the other hand, he committed nothing shameful, nor a crime, but by word he achieved all things. And many of the people followed him and accepted his teachings. And many souls became unsettled, thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes would free themselves from Roman hands. Now it was his custom to stay mostly on Mount Olivet before the city. There also he granted the healings to the people. And one hundred and forty disciples gathered round him and a multitude of the people. When, however, they saw his power, that he carried out all he wished by word, they bade him make entrance into the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and become king over them. But he refused it with contempt. And after this, when the Jewish leaders received an account of this, they gathered themselves together with the High Priest and said: ‘We are powerless and weak to resist the Romans. But as the bow is bent, let us go and inform Pilate what we have heard, and we shall be out of harm’s way, lest when he hears it from others, we be despoiled of our goods and even massacred, and our children scattered.’ And they went and told Pilate. And he sent and had many of the people cut down. And that miracle-worker he caused to be brought to him. And as he instituted an enquiry on this account, he saw that he [Jesus] was a doer of good and not a doer of evil, nor a rebel, nor one who strove for sovereignty, and he dismissed him. He had in fact healed his wife when dying. And he went to his accustomed place and did his accustomed works. And when again more people gathered round him, then he glorified himself by his working more than all. The teachers of the law were poisoned with envy and gave Pilate thirty talents that he should kill him, and after he had taken the money, he abandoned him to their will, that they themselves should carry out their purpose. And they took him and crucified him against the law of the fathers.”—Concerning John the Baptist (Bk. II, ch. vii, after 2, before the opening words of § 3): “In those days there walked amongst the Jews a man in strange garments, since he had glued the skins of oxen to his body, where it was not covered with his own hair. But in face he was like a savage. That one came to the Jews and called them to liberty, saying: ‘God has sent me, that I should show you the way of the law, in which you will free yourselves from many tyrants, and no mortal will rule over you, only the Most High, who has sent me.’ And when the people heard this, they were glad. And all Judea that lies around Jerusalem followed him. And he did nothing else to them but that he dipped them in the River Jordan and then dismissed them, exhorting them that they should cease from evil works and promising that there would be given unto them a Cæsar, who would deliver them and subject all things hostile to them, but they themselves would be subject to none. At these words some blasphemed, and others gained faith. And when he was brought before Archelaus, and the learned in the law were gathered together, they asked him who he was, and where he had dwelled hitherto. And he answered and said: ‘I am guileless, as the Spirit of God has moved me, and I live on reeds and roots and wild fruit.’ Now, as they threw themselves upon him to torture him, that he should desist from his preachings and doings, he spoke: ‘It is you who should abandon your abominable doings and turn back to the Lord your God.’ On this Simon, a Pharisee, formerly one of the Essenes, arose in great wrath and spoke: ‘We read the divine books every day, but thou, who hast come out of the forests as a wild beast, thou darest to teach us and to deceive the people with thy reckless speech.’ And he leaped forward to do him bodily mischief. But John rebuked them saying: ‘Unto you I will not reveal the mystery that dwelleth amongst you, for you would not. Hence there has come upon you an unspeakable evil and because of you it cometh.’ And after he had thus spoken, he went to the country beyond the Jordan, and as no one dared to gainsay him, he did the works which he had done before.” (Bk. II, ch. ix, paragraphs 5–6 of the Greek precede §§ 2–4): “And Herod, his brother, took Herodias, his wife. But on her account all learned in the law abominated him, but dared not rebuke him to his face. But now that man whom they called a savage, came to him in wrath and said: ‘Why hast thou taken the wife of thy brother, thou reckless one! Since thy brother has died a merciless death, so thou also shalt be mowed down by the heavenly scythe. God’s counsel will not be dumb, but will destroy thee through bitter evil in strange lands. For thou dost not raise seed to thy brother, but satisfiest thy fleshly lusts and committest adultery, as there are of him four children.’ But when Herod heard this, he waxed wroth and commanded that he [John] should be beaten and driven away. But he [John] rebuked Herod wherever he found him, and this so long till he [Herod] applied force and commanded that he [John] should be cut down. But his character was strange and his kind of life not human, indeed as a disembodied ghost, so he persevered. His lips knew no bread, not even at the Passover did he eat unleavened bread, saying: ‘Such bread is given in memory of God, who delivered the people from bondage, to comfort them as the way was mournful.’ But wine and intoxicating drink he did not even allow near, and every animal [food] he abominated, and every wrong he rebuked, and for food he used twigs of trees.” Concerning the Apostles (Bk. II, ch. ii, 6): “Claudius sent again his governors to those states, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander, who both kept the people in peace, since they did not allow them in any point to deviate from the pure law. And as often as some one deflected from the law, it was denounced to the teachers of the law, and they sent him to the presence of the Emperor. And as at the time of those two [Fadus and Alexander] many had shown themselves as disciples of the above-named miracle-worker, and as they spoke to the people about their teacher, that he was alive though he had died, and that he would free you (sic!) from bondage, many of the people listened to the above-mentioned and accepted for themselves their command; not for the sake of honor, for indeed they were of the simple folk, some even shoemakers, others sandal-makers, others artisans. And what marvelous signs they worked, in truth, whatever they wished! But since those noble governors saw the seduction of the people, they planned with the scribes to lay hold on them and put them to death, for the insignificant is not insignificant when it matures into something great. But they felt ashamed and were terrified about the signs, as they said: In a normal way such miracles do not occur, but when they do not have their origin in God’s council, they will swiftly be proved wrong. And they gave them [the disciples of Christ] leave to do as they would. Afterwards, however, being troubled by them, they [the Jewish leaders] sent them [the disciples] away, some to the emperors, others to Antioch, and others in far away countries to probe the matter. Claudius then removed both the governors and sent Cumanus.” Concerning the temple inscription (Bk. V, ch. v, § 2 after “by fourteen steps from the first court”): “And above those tablets with inscriptions [threatening death in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin against gentile intruders on the Temple precincts] hung a fourth tablet with an inscription in those [Hebrew] characters, stating: Jesus had not reigned as king, he was crucified by the Jews because he announced the destruction of the city and the desolation of the Temple.”—For these and a few other passages from the “Russian Josephus,” for which we have no room here, see J. P. Arendzen, Men and Manners in the Days of Christ, London, 1928, pp. 57 sqq. This learned scholar thinks that “there can hardly be a reasonable doubt that the Russian text is a translation of Josephus’s first edition of the Jewish War … directly after the Aramaic original, and not through the intermediary of a Greek version,” and that “there is nothing to suggest that the passages referring to the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles are insertions by another hand.” (Op. cit., pp. 67 sq.) Berendts’ work, mentioned above, is entitled, Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im Slavischen “De Bello Judaico” des Josephus, 1906. For another German edition of the passages referring to John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles, see Klostermann, Apocrypha, Vol. III, 11, 1911; and for a rendering into English of all the passages, Mead, The Gnostic John the Baptizer, London, 1924, pp. 103 sqq. For a discussion of the authenticity of the “Russian Josephus” see Vacher Burch, Jesus Christ and His Revelation: Fresh Evidence from Christian Sources and Josephus, London, 1927, pp. 142–177.
Supplementary Note 5—Source footnote 521
Pagan worshippers were most catholic in their tastes in giving recognition to as many deities of diverse origin as they fancied. “The Emperor Alexander Severus honored in his private chapel Orpheus, Abraham, Apollonius of Tyana together with Jesus Christ (Lampridius, Alex. Severus, 29). Ancient tombstones testify to this mingled devotion to deities of Greece and Rome and the Orient. … Apollonius of Tyana visited many temples and oracles within and without the Roman Empire. Apuleius sought initiation into several mysteries. Plutarch’s Clea was an attendant on the Delphic Dionysus and an initiate of Isis (Plut., De Is. et Os., 35). Tatian (Ad Graecos, 29) in his search for the truth, sought initiation into several mysteries. Praetextatus and his wife had taken the sacraments in various mystery-societies. (Corpus Inscript. Lat., VI, 1, 1779). Even the priesthoods were not exclusive; the same individual might be a priest of the Phrygian and Persian cults as well as an official in the state cult. Among the deities there was no jealousy; several might be accommodated in one temple, or the deity to whom a temple was dedicated might admit lesser deities who had some hold on the affection of his votaries. In the Isium of Pompeii stood statues of Dionysus, Venus, and Priapus (Mau, Pompeii, p. 169; Lafaye, Hist. du Culte des Divinités d’Alexandrie, Paris, 1884, p. 190). In a Mithraeum at Ostia, Italian and Greek deities were venerated. (Cfr. S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions and Christianity; A Study in the Background of Early Christianity, new ed., London and New York, 1928, p. 192).
Supplementary Note 6—Source footnote 686
It is proper to add that the interpretation of this Danielic prophecy is rather uncertain. Something like a hundred different interpretations have been attempted (cfr. F. Fraidl, Die Exegese der siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alten und mittleren Zeit, Graz, 1883). The latest Catholic commentator on the Book of Daniel, Prof. J. Goettsberger, says that the only way to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of the text is to pay due attention to the definite statements contained therein. Most rationalist critics reject it entirely as a vaticinium post eventum. Others apply it to the period of the Machabees. Among Catholic exegetes, Lagrange, Riessler, and Szczygiel accept this interpretation in part, but insist that the text is truly prophetical and that Daniel, together with the period of the Machabees, surveyed with true prophetic vision the time of the Messias and the end of the world. The great majority of Catholic exegetes, however, regard Dn. IX, 24-27 as an exclusively Messianic prophecy, though most of them admit that the seventy “weeks of years” do not permit of any close computation. In the opinion of Dr. Goettsberger, the angel simply wishes to impress upon the prophet, who probably expected more than a mere restoration of the Jewish nation after the expiration of the seventy years, that he had better figure with “sevenths,” i. e. “weeks of years.” “As a matter of fact,” says this commentator, “no computation yet made has found general acceptance. Even the Machabean interpretation, which for the most part begins to reckon from 605-588, the term which seems to have the best exegetical foundation, finds itself compelled to abbreviate the Danielic chronology. The Messianic interpretation seems to lose weight as a Christological argument if we forego a definite calculation; but the loss is only apparent, since while most exegetes claim to be able to calculate the time of Christ’s ministry and death almost to the day and the hour, no two of them agree in their results. If we leave aside the seventy ‘weeks of years’ as a definite indication of time, we can ascertain the terminus a quo as well as the terminus ad quem of this period purely on the basis of objective indications contained in the text. These indications point with a reliability that can hardly be questioned to the prophecy of Jeremias, or its fulfilment, that is to say, 605-588 B.C., as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks of years. It is more difficult to ascertain the terminus ad quem, i.e., the last week of years, because about one-half of the indications are not clear, and among those which can be interpreted, some fit the period of the Machabees just as well as the time of the Messias. Assuming that, if we had a clearer knowledge of the facts, the uncertain momenta would favor partly the one and partly the other view, as is generally the case, we can still draw several conclusions from the clear indications contained in the sacred text. Daniel’s principal prophecies (cfr. ch. II and VII) refer ultimately to the period of the Messias. Chapter IX would require only one step farther to turn the prophecy concerning the coming visitation into the traditional prediction concerning the Messianic kingdom. Perhaps the abrupt close of this chapter is owing to the absence of some complementary verses which have been lost. That the prophet had these things in mind, or rather, heard the angel utter them, is indicated by the phrase ‘everlasting justice’ (IX, 24), which cannot be explained on any other hypothesis. Aside from these meagre Messianic indications, the trend of the prophecy leads us only to the threshold of the new era, the Messianic kingdom, as it were. Of the salient features, however, so many are certainly applicable to the period of the Machabees, that they cannot be taken out of the prophet’s field of vision. Thus Ch. IX stands among prophecies which, according to the common opinion of exegetes, deal exclusively or predominantly with the Machabean period (cfr. ch. VIII and X sqq.). Moreover, the close objective connection with ch. VIII leads us to expect in ch. IX principally clarification and supplementary information to ch. VIII, i. e., to a prophecy applying to the time of the Machabees. The 2,300 evenings and mornings (VIII, 14) objectively and in extent coincide with the ‘half of the week’ in IX, 27 (cfr. also XII, 7). The ‘iniquity’ (VIII, 13-IX, 24), and the consummation of that iniquity (VIII, 23-IX, 24), and such phrases as ‘he shall lay all things waste’ (VIII, 24 sq.; IX, 26), ‘the end thereof shall be waste’ (IX, 26), ‘the abomination of desolation’ (VIII, 13-IX, 27; cfr. XI, 31) not only refer to a series of similar occurrences, but together with other indications point to the identity of the epoch described by the prophet. Already in ancient times, therefore, Josephus saw a fulfilment of the Danielic prophecy in the epoch of the Machabees (Ant., XII, 7, 6) and a later fulfilment in the epoch of Titus (ibid., X, 11, 7). And to mention a more authoritative interpretation, 1 Mach. I, 54 not without reason derives the ‘abomination of desolation’ from Dan. IX, 27, in order to stigmatize the wicked deed of Antiochus, while our Divine Saviour Himself employs the same expression with direct reference to Daniel in order to describe the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus and the end of the world (Matth. XXIV, 15 sq.; Mark XIII, 14). It was precisely the application of this prophecy of Daniel to the events of the Messianic epoch which gave to later Christian exegetes the occasion and the right to point out a series of other Messianic details in Dan. IX, 24-27, without excluding the immediate interpretation of the text as applying to the Machabees. It was bound to strike the reader that twice, at a decisive turn in the history of the Chosen People, an ‘anointed saint’ or ‘Christ’ appeared, after the expiration of the seven weeks of years and after the sixty-two weeks of years. This directs attention to the ‘anointed one’ in the most exalted sense of the term, i. e., Christ the Messias, who combined in His person the anointed king (Cyrus) and the suffering and dying Christ, i. e., the high priest of the Machabean era. That the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary which in the Machabean epoch precedes the decisive turn of affairs, in the Messianic era followed the appearance of the Saviour at some distance (destruction of the city and the Temple under Titus, A.D. 70) does not prevent us from seeing in the two events a type and its anti-type. It seems peculiar, yet lies entirely within the limits of the Christian interpretation of Old Testament types of the Messias, that the abolition of the daily sacrifice, which was an act of persecution of the Machabean epoch, is regarded as a Messianic act of grace prefiguring the substitution for the sacrifices of the Old Law of the one everlasting sacrifice of the New Law ….” (J. Goettsberger, Das Buch Daniel übersetzt und erklärt, Bonn, 1928, pp. 74 sqq.)
