The Historical Actuality of Revelation

2. Credibility of the New Testament

We maintain that the writings of the New Testament are entirely trustworthy.

To prove this thesis we have to show: (1) that the New Testament writers were able to ascertain and report the facts; (2) that they were willing to tell the truth, and (3) that their statements are borne out by non-Biblical authorities.

1. The New Testament writers were able to ascertain and report the facts.

A. The authors of the four Gospels were close to the events which they narrate. Two of them, St. Matthew and St. John, were Apostles of Jesus Christ, and, as such, eye-witnesses of most of the occurrences which they report. The other two, St. Mark and St. Luke, while not so favorably placed, nevertheless, as tradition assures us, had intimate contact with eye-witnesses. That the Evangelists possessed the power of observation and the knowledge necessary to report the facts, is evident from their writings. To report the utterances and deeds of Christ, nay, even His miracles, merely required the capacity of recording what they had themselves seen or heard, or learned from others. For this the normal functioning of the senses and a sound judgment were quite sufficient. That the Evangelists possessed these qualifications their writings amply attest.

The just historical evaluation of the Gospels is intimately bound up with the question of the mutual relationship of the three Synoptics among themselves and to the Fourth Gospel.

The Synoptic Problem.—The first three Gospels, composed, respectively, by SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, show a remarkable agreement both in form and content, and are therefore called Synoptic (from σύνοψις, a general view, or a collection of heads or parts so arranged as to exhibit a general view of a whole). They deal for the most part, though not always in identical order, with the same subjects, almost completely limit the public activity of Jesus to Galilee, report His journey to Jerusalem for the celebration of the Pasch, His death on the cross, His Resurrection, and His appearances in a glorified body. In doing so, the Synoptics often employ identical words and phrases. The resemblance between these three Gospels is still more striking when they are compared with the fourth. The Gospel of St. John describes the public activities of the Saviour as centering about Judea and reports His discourses in a different style and method than the Synoptics. We do not, of course, mean to deny that the first three Gospels also differ considerably from one another in matter and manner of treatment. The one thing all four have in common is the story of the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ.

How are we to explain the resemblances between the Gospels of SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Different theories have been devised for this purpose. All of them can, however, be reduced to three.

α) The first of these theories (espoused by Gieseler, Kaulen, and Cornely) assumes that the Synoptics, in composing their Gospels, drew exclusively from oral tradition, which, in consequence of the Apostolic preaching, had gradually been reduced to a certain uniformity. However, the resemblances between the three writers, sometimes involving literal identity, cannot be explained solely on the ground of a common oral tradition. If they could, the parallel passages in the Fourth Gospel would have to show a greater similarity with the corresponding portions of the Synoptics, and such important matters as the Lord’s Prayer and the words by which Jesus instituted the Holy Eucharist would not differ as widely as they do. Moreover, St. Luke in the introduction to his Gospel expressly refers to written sources.

β) The theory of a twofold source was championed by Schleiermacher, Holtzmann, Weiss, and Protestant exegetes generally assume that St. Mark wrote his Gospel first, and it was used by SS. Matthew and Luke as their principal source. In addition, the latter two Evangelists are said to have employed a secondary source, which contained mainly sayings (logia) of Christ. This theory seems untenable for two reasons. First, we have no historical information that there was such a collection of logia, whereas, secondly, there is undeniable evidence that St. Matthew, not St. Mark, was the first one to write a Gospel, and that our Greek Matthew is a translation of an Aramaic original, and not a collection of materials taken from the Gospel of St. Mark, the logia, and other sources peculiar to St. Matthew.¹⁴¹141The Biblical Commission has rejected this theory in a decision issued June 26, 1912. See Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, Enchiridion, 16th and 17th ed., Freiburg i. B., 1928, n. 2164 sqq. English translation in M. Seisenberger, op. cit., p. 492. Cfr. Knabenbauer, l. c.

γ) Zahn (Prot.), Belser, and other exegetes seek to solve the Synoptic Problem by pointing to the mutual interdependence of the three Gospels. According to tradition, St. Matthew was the first to write a Gospel. St. Mark wrote somewhat later. He based his story on information received from St. Peter, who had been an eye-witness to the facts. This explains the vividness of his descriptions. No doubt St. Mark was acquainted with the Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew and made use of it in compiling his own narrative, which frequently takes the form of a brief summary. The differences in style between these two Evangelists are a result of the translation of the Aramaic original of St. Matthew by St. Mark. Where both agree in form and subject-matter, we are justified in assuming that the translator of the Aramaic Matthew utilized the Greek Mark. St. Luke, on his part, probably made use of St. Mark and of the Aramaic and Greek texts of Matthew and, besides, employed other sources unknown to us. This theory is preferable to the other two because it satisfactorily explains both the resemblances and the divergencies of the first three Gospels and, moreover, is in perfect harmony with ecclesiastical tradition.

The Gospel of St. John in Its Relation to the Synoptics.—The differences existing between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics are easily explained if we bear in mind the purpose of the Johannine Gospel, the time of its composition, the conditions under which it was written, and the individuality of its author. St. John wrote long after the other three Evangelists and with their Gospels before him. He endeavored to supply the deficiencies and to clarify the obscurities of the Synoptics. While the latter are almost exclusively occupied with Christ’s activity in Galilee, St. John emphasizes His ministry in Judea. While the Synoptics pay greater attention to the human aspects of the Redeemer, St. John regards it as the chief object of his Gospel to show that Jesus was the true Son of God, identical in substance with the Father. Christ’s method of teaching in the Fourth Gospel differs from that described by the Synoptics. The difference is conditioned mainly by the character of His hearers, who in Galilee were ordinary peasants, whereas in Judea He preached to men learned in the Mosaic law and other representatives of the cultured classes. The differences in literary style between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics are attributable, at least in part, to each writer’s independent conception of his subject and to certain individual peculiarities.

Having studied the interdependence of the four Gospels, we now return to the question of their value as historical documents. As we have seen, St. Mark bases his account upon eye-witnesses, S. Peter (and probably Matthew), while St. Luke depends largely on SS. Mark and Matthew and upon other oral and written sources unknown to us. Consequently, only the reports of Matthew, Peter, and John, and the traditions used by Luke can claim independent value. What precisely is their value? Were these eye-witnesses able to give a reliable account of Christ’s life and teaching several decades after His departure? We answer, yes, for the following reasons:

α) Aside from the fact, already mentioned on a previous page, that the Oriental memory is extraordinarily tenacious, the traditional method of teaching employed by the Jewish rabbis must have had considerable influence on the disciples of Jesus. This method consisted in impressing the words of the teacher on the pupils by frequent repetition. So great was the importance which the rabbis attached to the correct memorizing of their doctrines that they had a proverb which said that to forget an important head of doctrine was as reprehensible as to endanger one’s life without necessity. The highest praise given to a pupil was that his memory was like a well-cemented cistern which did not lose a drop of the water poured into it.¹⁴²142E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. II, 4th ed., Leipsic, 1907, pp. 384 sq. Though Jesus was not a rabbi in the ordinary sense of the term, He appeared in public as a teacher, and as such had to adhere more or less closely to the traditional method. The deep impression which He made upon His disciples was the best guaranty that the doctrines He inculcated would stick in their memory. The remembrance of what they had seen and heard was bound to be all the livelier the more intimate was their relation to the Master and the more impressive the occasions upon which He spoke. Thus we can easily understand why the disciple “whom Jesus loved,” and who leaned upon His breast at the Last Supper, was able to report the Master’s parting words with such detail.

β) The form in which Jesus clothed His discourses was calculated to make them easily remembered. He employed striking similes and parables taken from everyday life and well adapted to the understanding of His hearers. His doctrines were embodied in brief and piquant maxims that easily impressed them upon the memory.

γ) Finally, the period of time that separates the Gospels from the events which they record is not long. The first three Gospels were written when many of those who had seen and heard Jesus Christ were still alive. St. Paul tells us that our Divine Redeemer after His Resurrection appeared to more than five hundred brethren, most of whom were still among the living when the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written.¹⁴³1431 Cor. XV, 6. Hence it was not at all difficult for the Evangelists to ascertain and substantiate the facts by inquiry and comparison of testimonies. The Gospel of St. John, it is true, is of a somewhat later date, but it was composed by one who had been particularly near and dear to Jesus, and therefore its credibility cannot reasonably be doubted.

In addition to this we must not forget that all four Evangelists may have made use of written records composed by eye-witnesses before the Gospels were set down.

The demonstrative force of these arguments in no wise depends on any one of the theories which have been devised for the solution of the Synoptic Problem. No matter which of these theories we may adopt, the credibility of the Gospels remains unaffected.¹⁴⁴144Esser-Mausbach, Religion, Christentum, Kirche, Vol. II, 5th ed.; Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 3rd ed., Leipsic, 1906; J. E. Belser, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 2nd ed., Freiburg, 1905; M. Lepin, Les Évangiles Canoniques, Vol. I, 4th ed., Paris, 1911, pp. 1598–1750; L. C. Fillion, The Life of Christ, tr. by N. Thompson, Vol. I, pp. 28 sqq., 481 sqq.

B. The Apostle Paul.—St Paul did not know Jesus personally, but in view of his extensive missionary activities it is safe to assume that He was thoroughly familiar not only with His teachings, but also with the circumstances of His earthly life. For since the life of our Saviour cannot be separated from His teaching, a successful propagation of the latter without regard to the former would be unthinkable. The Pauline Epistles, it is true, contain few concrete incidents from the life of Christ, but we must remember that they were written almost without exception to faithful Christian believers, who were familiar with the story of the Master’s life. Besides, the attention of the Fourth Evangelist is occupied with the glorified heavenly Christ rather than His earthly appearance.¹⁴⁵145Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 4; F. Prat, S.J., The Theology of St. Paul, tr. by J. L. Stoddard, Vol. II, London, 1927, pp. 22–26, 154–159; L. C. Fillion, S.S., “Jésus ou Paul?” in the Revue du Clergé Français, 1912. But the personal traits and facts which St. Paul mentions in His Epistles permit us to see clearly that he was conversant with the life and deeds of Christ, not only in a general way, but in detail. Thus he mentions His descent from David according to the flesh,¹⁴⁶146Rom. I, 3. assures the Galatians that he has “set forth Christ crucified before their eyes,”¹⁴⁷147Gal. III, 1. speaks of the night in which Jesus was betrayed and instituted the Holy Eucharist, relates that the glorified Master was seen after His Resurrection by a large number of persons, and so forth.¹⁴⁸148 See Supplementary Note 2, p. 330.

Some find it strange that St. Paul in his Epistles so rarely refers to sayings of the Lord. In only two passages does he quote the Master directly¹⁴⁹149Acts XX, 35; 1 Cor. XI, 23 sqq. and only on two occasions does he attribute precepts directly to Him.¹⁵⁰1501 Cor. VII, 10 and IX, 14. Allusions to words of Jesus occur more frequently, and in substance Paul’s teaching fully agrees with that of His Master.¹⁵¹151Prat devotes practically the whole of his two classic volumes, The Theology of St. Paul, tr. by John L. Stoddard, 2 vols., London, 1926 f., to establish the identity of St. Paul’s theology with that of His Master. After a review of some of the leading points of identity (Vol. II, p. 156) he says: “Finally, in order to verify the results of this rapid review, we ought to take some terms of comparison; for example, the Sermon on the Mount or the great eschatological discourse. Here the numerous similitudes, both in substance and in form, are instantly obvious, and can be traced back evidently to the same source—namely, the teaching of Jesus. The fact is so clear that no sensible critic will dispute it.” Cfr. also Dausch, Jesus und Paulus, Münster i. W., 1911 (collection Biblische Fragen); Murillo, Paulus et Pauli Scripta, Vol. I, Rome, 1926, pp. 476–481. The fact that so few sayings of Jesus are literally quoted in the Pauline Epistles will seem less surprising if we remember that the same is true of the letters of the other Apostles (Peter, James, John, Jude), who had enjoyed intimate personal converse with the Master for a number of years. The explanation probably is that when the Apostles began their missionary labors, there was as yet no written record containing the sayings of Jesus, and even after the first three Gospels were written and circulated, it took some time before the heralds of the faith became accustomed to regard and quote these writings as of equal authority with the books of the Old Testament.

That St. Paul was well acquainted with the life and teachings of Christ and, therefore, in a position to inform his hearers concerning them, is explained (aside from the supernatural revelation which he had received) by the fact that he was on intimate terms with the other Apostles.¹⁵²152Gal. I, 12. Cfr. Acts IX, 27; XV, 2. He himself relates, and confirms the truth of his statement by a solemn oath, that he visited Jerusalem during the early days of his ministry to see St. Peter, stayed with him for fifteen days, and on that occasion became acquainted with St. James, the brother of the Lord.¹⁵³153Gal. I, 18 sqq. Fourteen years later, he adds, he again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus and compared the gospel which he had preached to the Gentiles with that of the chief Apostles, Peter, James, and John, and no one took exception to his teaching.¹⁵⁴154Gal. II, 1 sq., 6 sqq.; cfr. J. J. I. Döllinger, Christentum und Kirche, Ratisbon, 1860, pp. 90 sq.

2. The New Testament writers wished to tell the truth.

a) The Evangelists.—St. Luke says in the introduction to his Gospel that he was not content with repeating what he had heard from others, but diligently sought to ascertain and report only verified historical facts. The book known as Acts of the Apostles, which forms the continuation of St. Luke’s Gospel and, like the latter, is dedicated to Theophilus, was evidently composed with the same object in view.

The credibility of the third, as well as of the other Gospels, is further attested by the style, the contents, and the circumstances under which they were written.

The style of the Evangelists is purely objective. They simply report what they had seen and heard. The subjective impression which the facts recorded must have made on their minds is nowhere mentioned. The most sublime as well as the most insignificant occurrences are related in equally simple and succinct language. There is no attempt at eloquence, no effort to embellish the text with rhetorical artifices, no injection of personal reflections, but a simple and manifest desire to let the facts speak for themselves. The Evangelists narrate the most astounding events without showing a trace of astonishment; they frankly avow their own errors, follies, and foibles, without trying to palliate them; they record the unjust condemnation of their Master and the odious and blasphemous conduct of His enemies without a word of criticism or complaint; they narrate the treason of Judas, the cowardice of Pilate, and the bloodthirsty wrath of the Jewish people without a sign of indignation or censure.

So much for the form of the Gospels. The subject-matter with which they deal is chiefly the public career of Jesus. St. Matthew and St. Luke give us but little information about His infancy. His birth and its attendant circumstances are reported in some detail, but what happened during the long period which elapsed between the return of the Holy Family from Egypt and the beginning of Christ’s public ministry—about twenty-eight years—we are not told, with the sole exception of the journey to Jerusalem and the twelve-year-old Boy’s stay in the Temple. All of which proves that the Evangelists had but one aim, namely, to tell what had actually happened. The boyhood of Jesus afforded a splendid opportunity for poetical embellishment, as the so-called apocryphal gospels show. In describing the public life of Our Lord the Evangelists had to stick closely to the facts, as there were many witnesses still alive who could have promptly detected and denounced any fictitious additaments.

The circumstances under which the Evangelists wrote also show that their only object was to tell the truth. The publication of the Gospels did not bring them any material advantage; on the contrary, since the Person, the teaching, and the work of Christ had from the very beginning of His career been “unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the gentiles foolishness,”¹⁵⁵1551 Cor. I, 23. those who championed the cause of Christianity had nothing but hatred and persecution to expect for their efforts.

Thus the Gospels testify on every page to the unselfish and disinterested veracity of their authors. Under such conditions, fraud and deception are not likely to creep in, and the only motive that can possibly have inspired the Evangelists to write, was a sincere desire to tell the truth and to spread it far and wide, so as to convert humanity to Christ.¹⁵⁶156P. Batiffol, The Credibility of the Gospels (Engl. trans., London, 1912); Lepin, Christ and the Gospel (Engl. trans. Phila., 1910); E. Jacques, La Crédibilité des Évangiles, Paris, 1913; Mangenot, Les Évangiles Synoptiques, Paris, 1911.

b) St. Paul had been an enemy of Jesus Christ and had persecuted His followers with a deadly hatred. He changed his attitude suddenly and became an ardent defender and herald of the Christian faith, who later on was able to say of himself that he had “labored more abundantly” for its extension than all the other Apostles. Such a radical conversion could result only from a change of heart wrought by the power of objective truth. When Paul, after his experience at Damascus, studied the life and doctrines of the Redeemer, he became convinced of the truth of the new religion. For this reason he continually reaffirms the facts which formed the foundation of his belief.¹⁵⁷1571 Cor. XV, 14. And because the conviction of the truth of Christianity is so firmly rooted in his soul, he is compelled by an irresistible impulse to preach the Gospel everywhere.¹⁵⁸1581 Cor. IX, 16, 19 sqq. In discharging this task he dreads neither labor nor anxiety, neither hatred nor persecution.¹⁵⁹1592 Cor. VI, 4 sqq.; XI, 23 sqq. History knows of no purely human witness who for reliability and veracity could be compared to St. Paul.

3. The credibility of the New Testament is confirmed by extra-Biblical evidence, bearing in part on the political situation and social conditions of Palestine and in part directly on the life of Christ and the first beginnings of Christianity.

A. The political situation of Palestine at the beginning of the Christian era is outlined in the third Gospel, where St. Luke describes the public appearance of the Baptist.¹⁶⁰160Luke III, 1 sq. Modern historical research has shown that St. Luke’s account agrees substantially with what we know from secular sources. Tiberius, in the fifteenth year of whose reign John the Baptist began his public career, ruled the Roman Empire from 14 to 37 A.D.¹⁶¹161E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. I, 5th ed., p. 328; L. C. Fillion, S.S., The Life of Christ, tr. by N. Thompson, Vol. I, pp. 138 sq. Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea from 26 to 36 A.D.¹⁶²162Schürer, op. cit., pp. 487 sqq.; Fillion, op. cit., pp. 134 sqq.; Müller, Pontius Pilatus, Stuttgart, 1888 (gives a list of earlier writings on Pilate); Rosières, Ponce Pilate, Paris, 1883; A. S. Barnes in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 83 sq. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, ruled as tetrarch of Galilee from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D.¹⁶³163Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 431 sqq. A tetrarch originally was the governor of the fourth part of a province. The word gradually broadened and came to be applied to subordinate administrators inferior to kings and ethnarchs (chiefs of various nations), but enjoying some of the prerogatives of royalty. Cfr. Fillion, Life of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 131 sq. His stepbrother, Philip (4 B.C. to 34 A.D.) acted as administrator of several districts which are subsumed by Philo under the name Trachonitis, while St. Luke calls them Ituraea and Trachonitis.¹⁶⁴164Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 425 sqq. The region of Abilene at the foot of Lebanon was ruled by a certain Lysanias, who, as we know from an inscription discovered near the site of Abila, held the office of tetrarch under the Emperor Tiberius.¹⁶⁵165Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 718 sqq. That Annas is mentioned as high priest beside his son-in-law Caiphas (18–36 A.D.)¹⁶⁶166John XVIII, 13. is easily explained in view of the fact that the Jewish high priests, after relinquishing their office, usually clung to the title, together with some of the rights and duties of their former charge, and assisted the acting high priest in governing the Sanhedrin.¹⁶⁷167Schürer, op. cit., Vol. II, 4th ed., pp. 270 sq., 274 sq. The Sanhedrin (Gr. συνέδριον = a place where one sits, then, by extension, an assembly) was a sort of senate or superior national assembly with jurisdiction in religious matters over the whole Jewish world. Its jurisdiction was quite extensive, even under the Roman régime. Cfr. Fillion, Life of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 140 sq.

Archelaus, whom St. Matthew¹⁶⁸168Matt. II, 22. mentions as “reigning in Judea in the room of Herod his father,” was the elder brother of Herod Antipas. He governed the province of Judea from 4 B.C. until 6 A.D.¹⁶⁹169Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, 5th ed., pp. 449 sqq.; Fillion, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 131 sqq. After him begins the period of the Roman domination and the country is governed by procurators (6–41 A.D.), of whom Pontius Pilate was the fifth.¹⁷⁰170Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 453, 487; Müller, Pontius Pilatus, der fünfte Prokurator von Judäa, Stuttgart, 1888. The Herod in whose reign Christ was born,¹⁷¹171Matt. II, 1. is King Herod the Great, who ruled over the whole of Palestine from 37 to 4 B.C.¹⁷²172Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 360 sqq. This implies, of course, that the beginning of the Christian era has been set at least four years too late. Cfr. Fillion, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 127 sqq.

St. Paul in his second Epistle to the Corinthians¹⁷³1732 Cor. XI, 32. mentions a “governor” as ruling Damascus “under Aretas the king.” This king is Aretas IV of Arabia, who reigned from 9 to 40 A.D.¹⁷⁴174Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 737; cfr. C. M. Cobern, The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing upon the New Testament, New York, 1917, p. 369.

St. Luke¹⁷⁵175Acts XXIV, 24. speaks of a procurator named Felix, who came with his wife Drusilla to hear Paul preach. Felix (52–60), after Herod Agrippa I¹⁷⁶17641–44 A.D. Cfr. Acts XII, 1, 19–23; Fillion, Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 137. On Herod’s sons in general, see F. de Saulcy, Histoire d’Hérode, Roi des Juifs, Paris, 1867. had united all Palestine under his scepter, was one of the governors who ruled the different provinces in his name.¹⁷⁷177A.D. 44–66. Cfr. Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 571, 577, 585 sqq. The successor of Felix, Portius Festus (60–62),¹⁷⁸178Cfr. Acts XXIV, 27. who sent St. Paul as a prisoner to Rome,¹⁷⁹179Acts XXV, 26; XXVII, 1 sq. Cfr. Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 579 sq. was a friend of Agrippa II (50–100), who, as son of Agrippa I, had been indemnified for the loss of his paternal inheritance by the emperors Claudius and Nero by the gift of another country. Portius Festus introduced St. Paul to King Agrippa on the occasion of a visit.¹⁸⁰180Acts XXV, 13 sqq., 26. Cfr. Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 587, 591.

B. The Social Conditions of Palestine at the Time of Christ.—The Evangelists are familiar with the Pharisees and Sadducees, the two most influential parties or sects among the Jews. They expressly refer to the bigotry and hypocrisy of the former and the heretical views and Epicurean life of the latter.¹⁸¹181Matt. XXII, 23, 34; Mark VII, 8 sqq.; Luke XI, 42 sqq. On the Pharisees and Sadducees see Fillion, Life of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 187 sqq., 190 sqq. Intimately associated with these parties are the Scribes, who are so often mentioned as representatives of law and order in the Gospels.¹⁸²182Mark II, 16; Luke V, 30; Acts XXIII, 9; Fillion, Life of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 176 sqq. On account of their occupation they were closely allied with the Pharisees. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells about these parties, and his description of them tallies perfectly with that given by the Evangelists.¹⁸³183Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. II, 4th ed., pp. 447–489; 372–389.

The Gospels relate that the Jews hated the Romans¹⁸⁴184Cfr. John XI, 48. and quarrelled among themselves as to the licitness of paying tribute to Cæsar;¹⁸⁵185Matt. XXII, 15 sqq. they also tell us that the Messias was quite generally expected to be a worldly ruler.¹⁸⁶186John VI, 14 sq.; cfr. Acts I, 6. This, too, agrees with what we know from Josephus.¹⁸⁷187De Bello Iud., II, 8, 1; VI, 5, 4; VII, 8, 1. The dislike of the Jews for the Samaritans is another matter regarding which Josephus confirms the Gospel narrative.¹⁸⁸188John IV, 9; cfr. Josephus, op. cit., II, 12, 3; Antiq., XVIII, 2, 2; XX, 6, 1.

C. The Life of Christ and the Beginnings of Christianity.—The extra-Biblical parallels to the Scripture texts on the life of Christ and the beginnings of Christianity are more important than those we have quoted because of the greater importance of the subjects with which they deal. The life and teaching of the Redeemer were facts towards which every one was compelled to take an attitude, either pro or con. The reports of the profane writers, no matter how meagre and one-sided they appear in comparison with the New Testament record, will always be more willingly accepted by those who assume a hostile attitude towards supernatural revelation. This attitude, of course, is objectively wrong; for a witness who, like most of the authors of the New Testament books, suffers martyrdom and death for the truth of the facts alleged by him, is certainly more reliable and trustworthy than one who has nothing to fear from the consequences of his writing. Nevertheless, it is necessary to reckon with this attitude in order to convince those who prefer extra-Biblical testimony to that of the canonical Scriptures.

Unfortunately for these sceptics, the profane testimonies bearing on the life of Christ and the beginnings of Christianity are few and meagre. This is not to be wondered at, since Christ spent the greater part of His life as a poor artisan in a secluded corner of Palestine, which lay outside the beaten track. His public appearance did create quite a stir among the Jews, but the excitement lasted only a short time and ended in His ignominious execution. On account of its purely local character, the Life of Jesus did not come under the notice of the Roman and Greek writers of the period. The Jewish historians did not deem it worth while to register the new religion because they regarded its Founder as a revolutionist and a false prophet, who justly suffered the death penalty for His crimes. Nor were the miracles wrought by Our Lord able to attract wide-spread attention, since belief in miracles was universal at that time and the worshipers of Æsculapius and Serapis pointed to similar phenomena.

Even after Christianity had spread beyond the limits of the Holy Land and penetrated to Rome and Greece, its true importance was not recognized for a long time. Since the new religion came from Palestine, it was regarded as a Jewish sect or put on a level with Judaism itself, which was thoroughly despised. Cicero, among others, called it a “barbara superstitio.”¹⁸⁹189Pro Flacco, 28. What confirmed this impression was that Christianity at first recruited its followers almost exclusively from among the poorer classes and, consequently, remained long unnoticed in an empire in which innumerable religious sects existed side by side.

a) Pagan Testimonies.—The oldest pagan reference to Christianity is contained in a letter written by Gaius Plinius Secundus, Pliny the Younger, from Bythinia to his master, the Emperor Trajan. Pliny was a lawyer, a financier, an accomplished man of letters, and an intimate friend of Trajan. The Christians at that time (about 111–113) were regarded as brigands and disturbers of the peace, obstinate sectaries who deliberately opposed the unifying policy of the State. The principal passages of the letter in question are as follows: “They [certain persons who had been accused before Pliny’s tribunal of being Christians] declared, however, that this had been the sum-total of their delinquencies or their delusion, that they had been wont to come together on a fixed day before dawn and sing a hymn alternately to Christ as a god, and to bind themselves by a solemn obligation, not for any guilty purpose, not to commit theft or robbery or adultery, nor to break faith or repudiate a deposit when called upon to pay it. That done, their habit had been to disperse and meet again to take food, but of the customary and harmless kind … But I discovered nothing but a degraded and extravagant superstition, and, therefore, adjourning the inquiry, I have had recourse to your advice, for the matter seemed to me a proper subject for consultation, especially on account of the number of persons endangered. For many persons of all ages, of every class, as well as of both sexes, are being, and will be, called into danger of their lives. Nor is it in the cities only, but the villages and the country also, throughout which the infection of this superstition has spread; yet it seems possible for it to be checked and amended.”¹⁹⁰190 See Supplementary Note 3, p. 331.

Somewhat later, about the year 116 A.D., Marcus Cornelius Tacitus, the famous historian, published his Annales. In the fifteenth book, where he records the burning of Rome, which was attributed to the Emperor Nero, he speaks of Christ and His adherents as follows: “So, to dispel the report, Nero substituted as the guilty persons, and inflicted unheard of punishments on those who, detested for their abominable crimes, were vulgarly called Christians. The source of the name was Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Checked for a moment, the pernicious superstition broke out again, not only throughout Judea, the original home of that pest, but also through Rome, to which from all quarters everything outrageous and shameful finds its way and becomes vogue. So those who confessed were first hurried to trial, and then, on their showing, an immense number were involved in the same fate, not so much on the charge of incendiarism, as from hatred of the human race. And their death was aggravated with mockeries, insomuch that, wrapped in the hides of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or fastened to crosses to be set on fire, that when darkness fell, they might be burned to illuminate the night. Nero had offered his own gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited a circus show, mingling with the crowd himself dressed as a charioteer, or riding in a chariot. Whence it came about that, though the victims were guilty and deserved the most exemplary punishment, a sense of pity was aroused by the feeling that they were sacrificed not on the altar of public interest, but to satisfy the cruelty of one man.”¹⁹¹191Annales, l. XV, c. 44 (for A.D. 64, written about 115): “Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti, qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens, haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus affixi aut flammati atque, ubi defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. Hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. Unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.” C. R. Haines, Heathen Contact with Christianity During its First Century and a Half, Cambridge, 1923, pp. 48 sq.; J. B. Aufhauser, Antike Jesus-Zeugnisse, 2nd ed., Bonn, 1925, p. 20.

A. Drews has tried to cast doubt upon the authenticity of this passage.¹⁹²192Die Christusmythe, 2nd ed., Jena, 1910, p. 175. For a detailed refutation of Drews see Oscar Graber, Im Kampfe um Christus, Graz, 1927. But if the text of the Annales had really been interpolated by Christian forgers, as he contends, the description of the Christian religion would surely have been different from what it is. “The passage,” says H. von Soden, “in its inimitable Tacitean style, and with its sovereign contempt for popular movements, cannot possibly be a Christian interpolation. If Christians were responsible for it, they would assuredly have painted the nascent Christian religion in a more favorable light, as they invariably did when they inserted the history of the origin of Christianity into historical works read among them. Tacitus was not read by the Christians at all on account of his heavy style and his general attitude, so that, according to the unanimous opinion of scholars, the text of his writings has come down to us in a more authentic form than that of any other pagan author.”¹⁹³193H. von Soden, Hat Jesus gelebt? Berlin, 1910, p. 11. Another important consideration is that the original text of the Annales had “Chrestianos,” not “Christianos,” whereas the name of the Founder is given as “Christus,” not “Chrestus.” The Christians were popularly known as “Chrestiani,” but Tacitus, who had investigated their history, while retaining this erroneous form, quietly corrected the name of the Founder.¹⁹⁴194A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Vol. I, 4th ed., Leipsic, 1923, pp. 427 sq.

Another pagan testimony is that of Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, who held the office of tribune under Trajan (98–117) and that of secretary of the war cabinet under Hadrian (117–138). He writes in his biography of the Emperor Claudius (composed about 120): “For constant riots instigated by Chrestus he [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome.”¹⁹⁵195De Vita Caesarum, Claudius, c. 25, 3: “Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.” Cfr. Acts XVIII, 2. “Chrestus” was the vulgar form of “Christus.” Tertullian¹⁹⁶196Apol., 3 (Migne, P. L., I, 281). and Lactantius¹⁹⁷197Div. Institut., IV, 7 (P. L., VI, 464). reproach the pagan Romans for calling the Christians “Chrestiani” and their Founder “Chrestus.” That Suetonius should mention Christ as leader of the Jews is not surprising, since he draws no clear distinction between Jews and Christians, and in another passage of his books classes both the latter and the former as “similia sectantes.”¹⁹⁸198De Vita Caesarum, Tiberius, c. 36. The riots instigated by the Jews (and Christians) need not necessarily be interpreted as revolutionary. Most likely they were local disturbances occasioned by the conversion of pagans to Christianity. That Christ, who no longer dwelled visibly among His adherents, was represented as the instigator of these disturbances, was probably owing to the fact that the Christians themselves, in order not to betray the visible heads of the Church, designated Christ, whose name they bore, as the leader of their community.

In his life of Nero, describing the measures taken by that emperor against the Christians because of the burning of the city, Suetonius says that “the Christians, a race of men addicted to a new and pestilent superstition, were severely dealt with.”¹⁹⁹199Nero, c. 16, 2: “Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae.” Cfr. the critical discussion of the passages referring to Christ in the writings of the pagans in K. Linck, De Antiquissimis Veterum quae ad Iesum spectant Testimoniis, Giessen, 1913, with abundant bibliographical references.

Though the statements of Suetonius concerning the Christians are meagre, they prove this much at least, that the Christian religion had already taken root in Rome at the time of Nero and Claudius.

b) Jewish Testimonies.—The most ancient and complete reference to Christ in profane literature, which is, however, of contested authenticity, is contained in the Antiquities of the Jewish Nation by Flavius Josephus (d. 100 A.D.). The Greek text reads as follows: “Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴ γε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. Ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων· καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. Καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου, οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες· ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων. Εἰσέτι τὸ νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.” (Antiqu., XVIII, 3, 3).

Réville, in his Jesus of Nazareth, reconstructs the passage as follows:

“At that time appeared Jesus, a wise man, who did astonishing things. That is why a goodly number of Jews and also of Greeks attached themselves to him. [Then follow some sentences probably signifying that these adherents had committed the error of proclaiming him the Christ.] But denounced by the leading men of the nation, this Jesus was compelled to die upon the cross. But those who had loved him before persevered in their sentiment, and to-day there still exists a class of people who take from him the name of Christians.”²⁰⁰200Some writers regard the testimony of Josephus as unquestionably genuine, whereas others reject it as spurious. The chief defenders of the authenticity of the passage of late years have been: F. Kaulen (Flavius Josephus’ Jüdische Altertümer, 3rd ed., 1892, p. 620); H. Hurter, S.J. (Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1890, pp. 515 sqq.; 1896, 584 sqq.); F. Bole (Flavius Josephus über Christus und die Christen, Brixen, 1896); F. A. Kneller, S.J. (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LIII, 1897, pp. 1–19; 161–174); F. C. Burkitt (Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1913, pp. 135–144); A. von Harnack (Internationale Wochenschrift für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik, 1913, pp. 1037–1068). The authenticity of the passage has been impugned by G. Wandel (Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift, 1891, pp. 967–987); B. Niese (De Testimonio Christiano quod est apud Iosephum, Marburg, 1893); E. Schürer (Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. I, 5th ed., Leipsic, 1920, pp. 544–549; with a bibliography of the older literature on the subject); M. J. Lagrange (Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, Paris, 1908, p. 19); P. Batiffol (Orpheus et l’Évangile, Paris, 1910, pp. 3–21); K. Linck (De Antiquissimis Veterum quae ad Iesum Nazarenum spectant Testimoniis, Giessen, 1913, pp. 1–31). The following writers regard the text as interpolated: A. von Gutschmid (Kleine Schriften, Vol. IV, Leipsic, 1893, pp. 352–354); G. A. Müller, Christus bei Josephus Flavius, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1895); F. Asmussen (Deutsch-evangel. Blätter, 1896, pp. 183–191); S. Reinach (Revue des Études Juives, Vol. XXXV, 1897, pp. 1–18); H. Felder (Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift, Linz, 1914, pp. 608–620; with a bibliography of the more recent literature on the subject).

This passage is well attested externally, since it appears in all existing MSS. of the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, the oldest of which dates from the eleventh century.²⁰¹201B. Niese, Fl. Iosephi Opera, Berlin, 1885–1895, Vol. III, Praef. The passage occurs also in a Greek synopsis of the Antiquities made in the ninth or tenth century, and in a Latin translation of the sixth century, for which Cassiodorus was responsible.²⁰²202Op. cit., I, xviii sq., xxvii sq. To the testimony of the MSS. may be added that of the ancient writers who quote Josephus’s account of Christ. The oldest of these indirect witnesses is Eusebius.²⁰³203H. E., I, 11 (Migne, P.G., XX, 216 sq.); Demonstr. Evang., III, 5 (P.G., XXII, 221). Both St. Jerome and the author of the De Excidio Urbis Hierosolymitanae²⁰⁴204Cfr. Eusebius, H. E., II, 12. assert that in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities Josephus expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of His miracles.²⁰⁵205Cfr. Haines, Heathen Contact with Christianity during its First Century and a Half, Cambridge, 1923, pp. 107 sq. Under these circumstances we cannot but assent to the judgment of Kneller: “One thing is certain, namely, that the passage concerning Christ [in the Antiquities of Josephus] is as well attested by tradition as any other in the writings of that author.”²⁰⁶206Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LIII, p. 7.

Those who deny the authenticity of the passage do so for external as well as internal reasons. Their first argument is that, according to Origen,²⁰⁷207Contra Celsum, I, 47 (P.G., XI, 745.) Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ. Origen would probably not have used the expression ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὡς χριστῷ if his copy of Josephus had contained the words: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. But if, as some think, his knowledge of Josephus was only superficial, and if he had read that author’s writings either not at all or only in a cursory manner, or if the conviction of Josephus’s unbelief was general at the time when Origen wrote, his way of expressing himself cannot surprise us.

It is further claimed that the passage in question cannot be genuine for the reason that, if it were, it would certainly have been quoted by the early Christian apologists, who had to defend the Messianic character of Jesus against the Jews. In reply to this objection we would call attention to the fact that Josephus had allied himself with the Romans and was not favorably regarded by his fellow-Jews, and consequently his authority would not be rated very highly among them. This is probably the reason why such eminent defenders of the Christian religion as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, who wrote after Eusebius, do not quote Josephus’s testimony in favor of Christ.

An internal criterion for rejecting the authenticity of the Josephan text is said to be the fact that it does not square with, but actually disturbs, the context. The passage concerning Christ is followed by this sentence: “At about the same time the Jews were affected by another accident.” As there is nothing in the passage concerning Christ which indicates an accident, but accidents are mentioned in the preceding text, the context becomes more intelligible if the passage is omitted. For this reason the text is rejected as a later interpolation. But we have no right to expect a closely knit context in the Jewish Antiquities. The entire text surrounding the passage under discussion is very loosely constructed. If it were more closely woven, the account of the preceding accident would have had to be immediately followed by mention of another, which is not the case, since the author goes on to narrate an event that took place in Rome and has no connection whatever with the accident in question.

Another objection raised against the genuineness of Josephus’s account of Christ is derived from the fact that this passage, in contradistinction to the author’s usual method, contains little more than encomiums, and says nothing about the birth-place of Jesus, His descent, His activities, and the cause of His death. To this we reply that Josephus treats other historic characters, e.g., John the Baptist and Theodas,²⁰⁸208Cfr. Acts V, 36. in the same way and, secondly, that a detailed life of Christ would have given rise to the same objection, namely, that the text was interpolated.

Some critics take offence at the fact that Josephus does not explain the short sentence, “But this man was the Christ.” Since nothing was said in the previous context about Christ, they argue, Josephus, writing for pagans who knew nothing of the Jewish expectation of a Messias, should have given some indication of what he thought of the personality of Christ. However, this demand would be justified only if it could be shown that Josephus in the sentence quoted intended to express his belief that Jesus was the expected Messias, which, as we shall see directly, was probably not his purpose.

The most important intrinsic argument against the authenticity of the text with which we are concerned is drawn from that same little sentence: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. Only a Christian could have expressed himself thus, says Schürer; but Josephus was no Christian, and consequently cannot have written this sentence.²⁰⁹209Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. I, 5th ed., p. 547. The answer to this objection is that there is no reason for asserting that only a Christian could have written: “But this man was the Christ.” Josephus, though not a Christian, may well have penned these words, in fact, it seems probable that he did so in view of his character and the circumstances under which he wrote. Selfishness is his most outstanding quality. “He is not a Jew, nor a pagan, nor yet a friend of the Christians, but an unprincipled and ambitious adventurer who reckons with the powers that be. Origen is entirely right in holding that Josephus was far from believing in or accepting the Messias in the Christian sense. As his whole character was ambiguous, so, too, were his utterances, dictated by a desire to be always on the safe side.”²¹⁰210A. Seitz, Christus-Zeugnisse, Köln, 1906, p. 15. Hence, he chose his words in such wise that whoever read them could interpret them according to his own preference. A pagan might think of the Christ who was well known as the founder of a new religion; a Christian might find his own belief in the Messianic mission of Jesus expressed in the text; a Jew might detect therein a sufficiently clear intimation that Christ was the man who had proclaimed himself the Messias and was executed by the rulers of the people.

Another brief mention of Christ is found in chapter XX of the Antiquities, where Josephus reports the death of the Apostle Andrew, to whom he refers as “the brother of Jesus, who is called the Christ.”²¹¹211τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου χριστοῦ. Ant., XX, 9, 1. The whole passage in Haines, op. cit., p. 109 and Aufhauser, Antike Christus-Zeugnisse, 2nd ed., pp. 13 sq. This passage, too, for much the same reasons, is accepted as authentic by some and rejected by other critics.

A great stir was created in English university circles and even in the daily press in 1927 by what is known as the “Russian Josephus,” i.e., an ancient Slavic version of the Aramaic original of the Jewish War, which contains lengthy references to John the Baptist, to our Blessed Lord, and to early Christianity. As a matter of fact these passages had been published in a German translation by W. Berendts as far back as 1906, but had been repudiated as not genuine by the leaders of critical thought, with the exception of two Catholic scholars, H. Delehaye, S. J., of the Bollandists, and A. Goethals.²¹²212 See Supplementary Note 4, p. 332. The sudden revival of interest in the passages arose from the publication of Berendts’ translation in the Acts and Commentaries of the University of Dorpat, and especially from the efforts of Professor Robert Eisler, a Jewish scholar, who contends that the Russian is indeed a translation of the Aramaic of Josephus and that the passages referring to the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles are genuine, though retouched by a Christian hand.

The Silence of Philo Judaeus.—Philo of Alexandria,²¹³213Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, Vol. III, 4th ed., pp. 636 sqq.; J. P. Arendzen, Men and Manners in the Days of Christ, London, 1928, pp. 189–221; E. Bréhier in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 23 sqq.; Jas. Drummond, Philo Judaeus, 2 vols., London, 1888. usually called Philo Judaeus (the Jew), says that in the year 40 A.D., when advanced in age, he went to Rome as a member of a Jewish mission. Hence, he must have been born about 20 or 25 B.C. and was probably a young man when Mary and Joseph fled with their Child to Egypt.²¹⁴214Arendzen, op. cit., p. 189. Since he wrote copiously on the contemporary history of the Jews and, as Eusebius tells us,²¹⁵215H. E., II, 5 (Migne, P.G., XX, 149). refers to Pontius Pilate, it appears strange that he nowhere mentions Jesus. Philo’s silence on this head can hardly be attributed to ignorance, since, with the communications that existed at that time between Jerusalem and the Jews of Alexandria, it is not probable that the news of the public activity of Christ had not reached the latter city during the lifetime of the famous Jewish author and philosopher.²¹⁶216F. Meffert, Die geschichtliche Existenz Christi, 8th ed., M. Gladbach, 1910, p. 37. But even on the assumption that Philo knew of the life and teaching of Christ, his silence can be explained. We have only to think of the Messianic idea existing in the Jewish mind at that time. The Jews expected a Messias who was to be a political ruler after the example of David and to free his nation from the Roman yoke. In this respect Philo, who, in spite of his Hellenistic training and philosophical views, always remained faithful to the traditional beliefs of the Jewish nation, was a true child of his time, and no doubt regarded a man who claimed to be the promised Messias, yet confined his activity exclusively to the religious sphere, as an impostor whose claims had best be ignored.²¹⁷217Schürer, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 601 sqq.; F. Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, 2 vols., London, 1915.

Should the testimony of Josephus Flavius be certainly shown to be spurious, his silence with regard to Christ could no doubt be explained on similar grounds. Josephus wrote for pagan Romans with the object of glorifying his own people.²¹⁸218Schürer, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 94. With this purpose in view, he carefully omitted whatever could throw an unfavorable light on the Jews. Their expectation of a Messias, which had repeatedly led to revolts and formed a constant source of danger to the Roman rule, he would, therefore, naturally pass over in silence. As he could not mention Jesus without some intimation of His Messianic claims, the only safe course was to say nothing at all about Him.

The Testimony of the Talmud.—The writers whose testimony we have quoted, while more or less adverse to the Christian religion, did not deem it their duty to combat that religion directly in their writings. It was otherwise with the Talmudists. They were bitter enemies of Christianity, who did not hesitate to employ calumny and slander in their efforts to discredit Jesus and His teaching. But in spite of the distortions of which they were guilty, their testimony is not without importance, for it confirms the existence of Jesus and offers a parallel account of the leading features of His career, which account, though disfigured, is not without historical value.

The most ancient portion of the Talmud, called Mishna, which was composed towards the end of the second century, is merely a codification of Jewish laws. It contains no reference to Jesus. The first mention of our Divine Saviour is found in the Tosephta, a supplement to the Mishna, composed about the beginning of the third century. More information is contained in an explanation of the Mishna found in the Palestinian Talmud (fourth century), and still more in the Babylonian Talmud, which dates from the fifth or sixth century.

The Tosephta, which reproduces an ancient Jewish tradition that had already been exploited by Celsus,²¹⁹219Cfr. Origen, Contra Celsum, I, 32 (Migne, P.G., XI, 720 sq.) says that Jesus—whom it never mentions by name except perhaps once or twice—was the adulterine issue of Mirjam (Mary) and a soldier named Pandera,²²⁰220The name Pandera is not, as was formerly thought, derived from παρθένος (virgin; cfr. J. Rendel Harris in the Expositor, London, 5th series, II, 193) nor from Egyptian mythology, but was a common name among the ancients. Cfr. A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1909, p. 46. and is therefore called Jeshu ben Pandira (or Pantiri). He became an adept in the arts of magic in Egypt, but was hanged on the eve of the Pasch at Lydda, because he seduced the Jews to idolatry and sorcery.²²¹221The Jewish Encyclopedia tabulates the places where Christ is mentioned in the Talmud and says that it is a mere “subterfuge” to attempt to escape these references as if they did not apply to Jesus of Nazareth. This great Jewish reference work freely admits that the Talmud specifies Christ’s healing the halt, blind, and leprous, and mentions His walking on the sea. Laible, Christus im Talmud (Engl. tr., 1893), gives a full list of references to the Virgin Mary. Cfr. C. M. Cobern, The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament, 2nd ed., New York, 1917, pp. 624 sqq. The Talmud, as Dr. Cobern points out, is a mammoth work, much larger than the Encyclopedia Britannica. A fine edition in fifteen volumes, with variants, has been published by Rabbinovicz; a critical German translation by Goldschmidt; an English version with a good introduction and a short “History of the Talmud” by M. L. Rodkinson (20 volumes). Rodkinson does not translate the passages referring to Christ in the Talmud, but acknowledges their existence (XIX, 106; cfr. Cobern, op. cit., p. 631). For more complete details see R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London, 1904; the article “Christ in Jewish Literature” by the same author in Hastings’s Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. II, 876–878; W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, pp. 452–486.

This brief curriculum vitae was expanded in the notorious Sepher Toledoth Yeshu (The Generations [i.e., History] of Jesus), which made its first appearance in the ninth century and created some stir during and after the Middle Ages. It has been republished of late by Samuel Krauss, a German Jew.²²²222There are two widely different recensions of the Toledoth Yeshu. J. C. Wagenseil published a Latin translation of one in his Tela Ignea Satanae (Altdorf, 1681), and J. J. Huldrich of the other in his Historia Jeschuae Nazareni a Judaeis blaspheme corrupta (Leyden, 1705). Cfr. the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII, p. 462; S. Baring-Gould, The Lost and Hostile Gospels, London, 1884, pp. 76–115; A. Seitz, Christus-Zeugnisse, Cologne, 1906, pp. 31 sqq.; J. Diefenbach, Christus und Christentum, Mayence, 1877, pp. 36 sqq. A number of Talmudic passages concerning Christ will be found in Aufhauser, Antike Christus-Zeugnisse, 2nd ed., Bonn, 1925, pp. 44–57. Fillion justly characterizes this production as follows: “This ignoble pamphlet, by a development of the Talmudic calumnies, treats of the birth of Christ, His public life, His death, and the origin of the Christian Church. The details would be ridiculous if they were not so revolting.”²²³223L. C. Fillion, Life of Christ, tr. by N. Thompson, Vol. I, pp. 9–10. Cfr. Homily of St. John Damascene on Matth. I, 1–16 in the Brev. Rom., Office of St. Joachim, Aug. 16th, lectio VIII.

In connection with this abominable production we must mention a modern forgery, known as the Benan Letter.

The Benan Letter.—Benan, who is described as an Egyptian physician and a contemporary and boyhood friend of Jesus, is said to have written a letter about him to a certain Straton, a former secretary of the Emperor Tiberius. The alleged text of this letter was first printed in a book published by Ernest Edler von Planitz at Berlin, Germany, in 1911, under the title, Ein Jugendfreund Jesu: Brief des aegyptischen Arztes Benan aus der Zeit Domitians. Nach dem griechischen Urtext und der späteren koptischen Ueberarbeitung. The author followed the pretended text with two volumes of commentary and a final volume bearing the title, Jesus und sein Werk im Lichte des Benanbriefes.

Benan tells his friend Straton of the star seen by the Magi at the birth of Jesus, whom he calls Jehoshua of Anu-Heliopolis. An astronomer named Putiphra had been sent from Anu (Egypt) to the land of the Apriu (Hebrews) for the purpose of observing the stars. Just as he discovers Sirius, a boy is born in the place where he is staying. This boy—Jehoshua—is entrusted to the astronomer. Putiphra takes him to Anu, where Jehoshua is welcomed by the high priest of the God Ra and trained by a Jewish rabbi, Pinehas. At twelve he visits his parents and his brothers and sisters in Palestine. They take him up to the Temple, where he surprises the Scribes and Pharisees by his profound knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. Jehoshua returns to Egypt, where he becomes the intimate friend of Benan, who is taking a course of medicine at Heliopolis. Jehoshua also studies medicine and soon acquires fame by his wonderful cures. He joins the Jewish sect of the Therapeutae, from whom he derives much additional knowledge and inspiration. At the age of twenty-six Jehoshua meets Philo of Alexandria, with whom he discusses philosophical and religious problems. Then, upon the advice of Pinehas, he returns to his home in Palestine, where he instructs the people in religion and cures those that apply to him for relief from various diseases. His friends in Egypt, not hearing from him for three years, finally become worried, and Benan visits Jerusalem with another Egyptian doctor to make enquiries. They arrive in the Holy City on the day of the Crucifixion. On the morrow they go out to Mount Calvary, but find the crosses vacant. They seek Jehoshua’s grave and, at the tomb, witness the miracle of the Resurrection. It is they who meet the pious women and are taken for angels because of their white garments. Jehoshua appears to them on the following day, whereupon they return to Anu-Heliopolis.

The second part of the letter gives an account of the events following the Resurrection. Benan removes to Italy shortly before the death of the Emperor Tiberius, becomes body physician to Caligula and Claudius, witnesses the burning of Rome under Nero, visits St. Paul in the Tullianum, where he also meets Seneca, sees the Christians martyred in the Vatican Circus, is compelled to fly, and returns once more to Jerusalem, where he enters into relations with the community of the Nazarenes, and makes the acquaintance of SS. Peter and John. Not long afterwards he meets the Roman general Titus in Cæsarea, is engaged by him as body-physician, and in that capacity witnesses the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. He participates in the triumph of Vespasian and Titus at Rome and among the Jewish prisoners on this occasion recognizes some Christians, among them the Apostle John, for whom, at the request of St. Luke, he intercedes with Titus. John is released and banished to Ephesus. After the death of Vespasian, Benan goes to Pompeii and witnesses the slaughter of the Christian martyrs in the amphitheatre and the fatal eruption of Vesuvius. He remains a heathen, but closes his letter with a prediction of the triumph of Christianity over paganism.

Aside from the many incongruities of this narrative, it is most unlikely that a single individual should have been an eye-witness of practically all the important historical events of his time. C. Schmidt, who has subjected the alleged Benan Letter to a searching criticism, shows it to be a rank forgery. “Ignorance, impudent self-assurance, and maliciousness,” he says, “have sponsored this production,” and “Jesus of Anu is the creation of a romancer who has gathered his materials indiscriminately from modern sources and deceived his readers by his pseudo-scholarly descriptions of the age and country.”²²⁴224C. Schmidt, Der Benanbrief, Leipsic, 1921, pp. 12, 76, 78.