The Peregrinations of Paul

© Cliff Carrington, July, 1999

Often there is more truth in jest than is noted. The satirist, Lucian (120-190 CE), gives us the earliest independent substantial secular source for the existence of Christianity following the Flavian forgers and myth-makers from late in the first century. Flavius Vespasian replaced the Julio-Claudian line of emperors and needed a literary justification for his dynasty’s rule. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and even Pliny the younger were all Flavian employees. It is in this Flavian Four where we have the first noncanonical testaments to the Christians.

Flavius Josephus makes no apology for his biases: “The treatment I received from the Emperors continued unaltered. On Vespasian’s decease Titus, who succeeded to the empire, showed the same esteem for me as did his father, and never credited the accusations to which I was constantly subjected. Domitian succeeded Titus and added to my honours. He punished my Jewish accusers.” [Life, 76.]

Josephus’ “Jewish accusers” were probably other historians accusing him of being a blatant Roman propagandist. Despite his disclaimers in his own writing he gives them grounds for such a belief:

“This account I have given the reader, not so much with the intention of commending the Romans, as of comforting those that have been conquered by them, and of deterring others from attempting innovations under their government.” [War, 3.5.8.]

That he was the sole historian of the Jewish war approved by the emperors is a matter of great pride to Josephus. It was his books on the war which were the ‘Authorised Version’:

“Now the Emperor Titus was so desirous that the knowledge of these affairs should be taken from these books alone, that he subscribed his own hand to them, and ordered that they should be published.” [Life 65]

His contemporary historian, Tacitus, follows: “My official career owed its beginning to Vespasian, its progress to Titus and its further advancement to Domitian. [Histories, 1.]

Suetonius wrote the existing biographies of the Flavians and Pliny was a friend of the Flavian family. These four men were well placed as the ‘official’ historians of the new dynasty which changed the face of the Roman empire and Western culture forever.

Unofficial historians, or those who did not follow the party line, were severely dealt with:

“Then Hermogenes of Tarsus died because of some incautious allusions that he had introduced into a historical work; and the slaves who acted as his copyists were crucified.” [Suetonius, Domitian 10.]

There is an argument that the Flavian testimonies to the Christians are interpolations. However, these were ‘official’ histories, therefore if the Christian passages are interpolations they are ‘official’. One simply did not interfere with the histories of this period without risking dire consequences.

A case can be made that the Christians and Gospels were actually a product of the Flavians. According to Suetonius, Vespasian’s son, Titus, was a master forger and propagandist who installed a select group of exceptional men who served the succeeding emperors as invaluable servants for both their private and public needs:

“It often amused Titus to compete with his secretaries at shorthand dictation, or so I have heard; and he claimed that he could imitate any handwriting in existence and might, in different circumstances, have been the most celebrated forger of all time.” “He chose as his friends men whom succeeding emperors also retained as indispensable alike to themselves and to the State, and of whose services they made special use.” [Suetonius, Titus, 3 & 7] (Desposyni?)

Following the disastrous civil wars during the year of the four emperors, in 69, the Flavians instituted a regime which was stable for almost 150 years. These were the forgers and propagandists behind the scene who insured this period of stability in the empire. This was also the period of the consolidation of Christianity and the first historical appearance of the Gospels.

The Flavian historians wrote up a series of miracles and prophecies which were used to justify the rise of their patrons. Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all describe an oracle that there would be a world ruler from the East, whom they identify as their patron Vespasian. Tacitus and Suetonius record, among other portents, the Jesus-like healing of the blind and lame by Vespasian in Alexandria. Josephus throws in his famous prophecy for Vespasian, which Suetonius also records. These are the Flavian Synoptics.

These men were not the only ones in the emperor’s employment who could fabricate miracles and portents. Being of common origin the Flavians needed supernatural support for the establishment of their dynastic rule. Et in Arcadia Ego:

“At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian.” [Suetonius, Vespasian. 7.]

However, Tacitus gives away the plot:

“It may be that mysterious prophecies were already circulating, and that portents and oracles promised Vespasian and his sons the purple; but it was only after the rise of the Flavians that we Romans believed in such stories.” [Histories, 1. 10.]

However we look at these ‘historians’ they are compromised by their own admission as being Flavian hack-writers. If we want an independent source for the existence of early Christianity we have to look elsewhere.

It is my considered opinion - and in dealing with this period one must have an opinion to make any sense of it at all - that these people were quite capable of creating the Gospels and propagating them in their own interest to provide an Hellenistic alternative to Judaism. If this clandestine project of theirs did flourish into an unexpected religion, well and good as it was tame and answerable to authority. It did indeed work so well that Christianity soon became the authority itself.

Lucian is our first truly independent source describing a Christian sect which would have been around for some time in the first third of the second century.

“The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves unto custody, most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving these doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.” (They were even cursed with T.V. preachers back then!)

The “poor” suggests a Jewish/Christian sect of the Christians which Lucian is describing. This will become plain later in the text. These early Christians show all of the major distinctions which separated them from the rest of society at the time. They believed themselves immortal and that they were all brothers (and sisters I presume). The feature which really separates them from others in the society is their denying of the old Greek gods. Lucian also writes that they worshipped a “crucified sophist” and lived under his laws. Communism is described as flourishing in this sect. Back then the Romans distrusted Communism as much as the Americans do today.

However, Lucian notes, quite clearly, that these Christians believed in their doctrines traditionally “without any definite evidence.” ‘Faith, brother’! All of this accords with the later descriptions of the Christians by themselves. Lucian was writing in almost the same years as Justin Martyr was supposed to be encountering the Gospels for the first time in recorded history. Perhaps these Gospels were now needed to furnish the “definite evidence” lacking in the Christians of the very early second century.

Lucian’s purpose is to describe one of the charlatans who duped these “simple folk”:

“It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests in Palestine. And - how else could it be? In a trice he made them all look like children; for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by him self. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a law-giver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.”

What were these “books” which the early Christians had? One would immediately think of the gospels. However, Lucian has neither the interest nor the literary need to name the Christian books, therefore we can only conjecture.

So what ‘type’ of literature did this interloper “compose” to contribute to the Christian writings? We are on somewhat firmer ground here because Lucian has an interest and a literary need to describe the ‘type’ of his compositions. At the end of the Satire Lucian writes of his ‘dispatching Epistles’:

“The story is that he dispatched epistles [epistolas] to almost all the famous cities - testamentary dispositions - so to speak, and exhortations and prescriptions - and he appointed a number of ambassadors for this purpose from his comrades.”

By associating first with the leaders in Palestine this huckster became a respected member of the sect and soon rose to the top, an ‘arch-apostle’. Anyhow, the charlatan is eventually imprisoned for his activity as a ‘Christian’:

“Then at length (the charlatan) was apprehended for this and thrown into prison.”

Lucian then goes on about how supportive the Christians were for the prisoner and how he was eventually freed:

“Well when he had been imprisoned, the Christians, regarding the incident as a calamity, left nothing undone in the effort to rescue him. Then, as this was impossible, every other form of attention was shown to him, not in any casual way but with assiduity; and from the very break of day aged widows and orphan children could be seen waiting near the prison, while their officials even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud... Indeed, people came even from the cities of Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of (this charlatan) much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. However, (the charlatan) was freed by the then governor of Syria, a man who was fond of philosophy.”

He was not even given the customary scourging before being freed, the Lucian Satire adds. In both the Lucian Satire and the Lukian Acts the Christians are allowed to visit the prisoner. This raises a question. If Christians were being persecuted by the Romans and arrested at every opportunity, why were these Christians, who came flocking to the prison, not also arrested? Perhaps the Romans only arrested the civil trouble-makers and left the harmless ones alone? In the fourth century Eusebius could only account for 146 Christian martyrs. This is out of a population of sixty million which continued over two hundred years. It is not a great percentage of martyrs.

Then, Lucian writes about this charlatan’s further peregrinations and his final falling out with the Christians:

“He left home, then, for the second time, to roam about, possessing an ample source of funds in the Christians, through whose ministrations he lived in unalloyed prosperity. For a time he fattened himself thus; but then, after he had transgressed in some way even against them - he was seen, I think, eating some of the food that is forbidden them - they no longer accepted him.”

This passage identifies these early Christians as ones who were probably still following the Jewish dietary restrictions, as did the Ebionites. Saul/Paul had this same dietary problem which eventually separated him from the ‘Jerusalem Church’ where he was no longer accepted.

This prophet and cult-leader in the Lucian Satire has an uncanny resemblance to the character of Saul/Paul in the Lukian Acts. The charlatan’s name is Peregrinus, also known as Proteus. These Christian passages from Lucian are in the ‘Death of Peregrinus’ (de Morte Peregrini), paragraphs 11-16. In the Loeb, volume 5, pp. 13-19.

This Peregrinus is well attested, and respected, by his contemporaries, Aulus Gellius (123-170 CE), Tatian (110-172), Athenagoras (120-177) and Tertullian (145-220). (See Appendix) He is recorded as a Cynic philosopher by later writers such as Philostratus the elder, and Ammianus Marcellinus. Notice, however, that the Christians Tatian, Athenagoras, and Tertullian do not claim him, and he is not mentioned in connection with the Christians anywhere else except in the Satire of Lucian. Only Lucian identifies him as a lapsed Christian. Peregrinus died, by self-immolation, in public at Olympia in 165 CE. Lucian had earlier met him in person and later witnessed his spectacular death. But, Lucian thought of him as merely a fraud and a notoriety-seeker.

The manuscript tradition of the Satire is good, several going back to the 9th and 10th centuries. The Satire is missing in some later manuscripts because it was put on the ‘Index Librorium Prohibitorum’. (I wonder why?) It was thought to have been written soon after the event in 165, probably about 167. The Satire implies that Peregrinus was an old man when he suicided and that he had been a Christian as a young man. This would put his Christian adventures in about the 130’s.

This scenario would fit several time schemes for the development of early Christianity. But, for the moment let us look at the parallels between this Protean character and Saul/Paul. He interpreted the Christian books and even wrote some for them. From the evidence in Lucian this Proteus had a practice of writing catholic letters containing “exhortations and prescriptions”, like Paul of the Epistles. He became their leader and law-giver. Then he differed with them on their food restrictions.

The Paul of the Epistles is like ‘Proteus’, the archetype shape-changer. “I have become all things to all people.” (1 Corinthians 9:22) Perhaps there is more in the meaning than has been apparent. I do not wish to push the identification of these two characters any further than to point out the canny resemblances.

This Lucian Satire ends with Peregrinus/Proteus giving up his body to the flames as his ultimate bid for notoriety. Paul says: “If I give up my body to the flames so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3)

Lucian’s self-sacrificing character says, “And I wish to benefit mankind by showing them the way in which one should despise death.” (Peregrinus 33.) Josephus says at the end of a speech to the war-like Jews besieged in Jerusalem; “Take my own blood as a reward, if it may but procure your preservation; for I am ready to die in case you will but return to a sound mind after my death.” (Jewish War, 5. 9. 4.)

Jesus supposedly went to his death voluntarily. It must have been the thing to do in those days. But, sensible men, like Lucian, ridiculed such acts, perhaps hoping to prevent others from following the lead of these senseless self-sacrifices. Peregrinus was following the example of the Indian philosophers such as Calanus who self-immolated in front of Alexander the Great and his army. These examples of the ultimate fortitude were much admired by the extreme Cynics. Lucian was cynical, but not suicidal.

The sect of philosophers known as the Cynics flourished under the stable Empire of the ‘Good Emperors’ in the first two centuries of our era. Some of the more famous whose work has survived are the other peregrinator Dio Chrysostom, Musonius Rufus, the would-be peacemaker, and his student. the almost-Christian, Epictetus. From Vespasian to Severus the Empire was relatively liberal to feral philosophers and even Christians. The Flavians initiated this blessed age which lasted for almost 150 years.

To return to the Lucian Satire, in which he mentions these early Christians, their books, and their beliefs - Jesus is not named! If Lucian knew of Christians why not Jesus? He calls him; “that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine” and “that crucified sophist”. Why is Jesus not named? Perhaps as a crucified man Jesus was cursed and also his name? That would be a Jewish excuse, but Lucian is not Jewish. The question remains open.

One other problem is - who is Lucian slandering, Peregrinus or the gullible Christians? He seems to be almost sympathetic to these Christians, calling them nothing worse than “simple folk.” There is a note of indignation in Lucian’s account of this “charlatan and trickster” “imposing” upon them.

The Lucian Satire is good independent evidence for the existence of recognizable Christians in the first third of the second century who worshipped a crucified hero. Lucian also gives us a recognizable ‘type’ of an epistle writing Saul/Paul in the form of Peregrinus/Proteus. Is this all we can say?

[If one came from Jupiter and read the description of Saul/Paul in Luke’s Acts one could justifiably come to the conclusion that Paul is being described as a Roman agent-provocateur travelling about disrupting the Synagogues and dividing the Jews! Whereas, when one reads Paul’s Epistles one finds a neurotic maniac/depressive. Can these two be the same character?]

APPENDIX

Flavian writers:

Josephus, ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, bk. 18, ch 3 (Jesus)

Tacitus, ‘Annals’ 15. 44. (Christians and Christ)

Suetonius, ‘Claudius’ 25 (Chrestus) & ‘Nero’ 16. (Christians)

Pliny the Younger, ‘Letters’, bk. 10, 96, 97. (Christians)

These are the other secular and Christian references to Peregrinus:

Lucian also mentions Peregrinus in passing in his Satire ‘Demonax’ 21.

Aulus Gellius (123-170 CE) ‘Attic Nights’.

Book VIII, 3. (Fragment)

“In what terms and how severely the philosopher Peregrinus in my hearing rebuked a young Roman of equestrian rank, who stood before him inattentive and constantly yawning.”

Book XII, 11.

“When I was at Athens, I met a philosopher named Peregrinus, who was later surnamed Proteus, a man of dignity and fortitude, living in a hut outside the city. And visiting him frequently, I heard him say many things that were in truth helpful and noble.” (Aulus then describes the teaching that men’s hidden crimes are not hidden from god.)

Tatian (110-172) ‘Address to the Greeks’, XXV.

“Though they (philosophers) say that they want nothing, yet, like Proteus, they need a currier for their wallet, and a weaver for their mantle, and a wood-cutter for their staff.”

Athenagoras (120-177) ‘A Plea for the Christians’, XXVI.

“But of the statues of Alexander and Proteus - the latter, you are aware, threw himself into the fire near Olympia, that of Proteus is likewise said to utter oracles.”

(The ‘Alexander’ Athenagoras mentions is the subject of another Satire of Lucian ‘Alexander the False Prophet’.)

Tertullian (145-220) ‘Ad Martyras’ IV.

“The philosophers have been outstripped - for instance Heraclitus, who, smeared with cowdung, burned himself; and of Empedocles, who leapt down into the fires of Aetna; and Peregrinus, who not long ago threw himself on the funeral pile.”

Philostratus the Elder (b. 190) In his work ‘On the Lives of the Philosophers’ there was a ‘Proteus the Cynic’ which has not survived. He mentions Peregrinus in passing as a famous Cynic philosopher in other parts of his writing. However, my copy of Philostratus has gone ‘Walk-About’ I will have to chase it down.

The references to Peregrinus in Ammianus Marcellinus. XXIX, 1, 39, and Eusebius, ‘Chronology’ II, p. 170, I cannot supply.

My source for Lucian is from the Loeb, volume five of the Satires . The Church Fathers quoted above are from the Eerdman edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1. The Josephus quotation is from Whiston’s translation.