Extra notes for the Flavian work. (3)
© Cliff Carrington
The Word
To His Word [logw], His chief messenger, highest in age and honour, the Father of all has given the special prerogative, to stand on the border and separate the creature from the Creator. This same Word both pleads with the immortal as supplant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subject. He glories in this prerogative and proudly described it in these words ‘and I stood between the Lord and you.’ (Deut. V. 5), that is neither uncreated as God, nor created as you, but midway between the two extremes, a surety to both sides; to the parent pledging the creature that it should never altogether rebel against the rein and choose disorder rather than order; to the child, warranting his hopes that the merciful God will never forget His own work. For I am the harbinger of peace to creation from that God whose will is to bring wars to an end, who is ever the guardian of peace.”
(Philo
Judaeus, Who is the Heir, 205-207,
Loeb, pp. 385-387. In the translator’s introduction, p. 277, this is mentioned
as “a passage which must surely have deeply impressed his Christian readers.” I
am sure they would be ‘deeply impressed’! [C.N.C.])
The Son of God
“But they who live in the knowledge of the One are rightly called “Sons of God [uioi qeou],” as Moses also acknowledges when he says, “Ye are sons of the Lord God” (Deut. XIV 1)... But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God [uioV qeou], let him press to take his place under God’s First born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were. And many names are His, for he is called “the Beginning,” and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His Image, and “he that sees,’ that is Israel.
“For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God
yet we may be sons of His invisible image, the most holy Word. For the Word is
the eldest-born image of God.” (Philo, The Confusion of Tongues,
145-148)
The Rising One
“I have heard also an oracle from the lips of one of the
disciples of Moses, which runs thus: “Behold a man whose name is the rising [anatolh],”
(Zech. VI 12), strangest of titles, surely if you suppose that a being composed
of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that it is that
Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree
that the name of “rising” assigned to him quite truly describes him. For that
man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised him up, and elsewhere
calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed in the ways
of his Father.” (Philo,
The Confusion of Tongues, 62-63)
Here we have, from Philo Judaeus, the foundations for a Christology. Perhaps ‘the’ foundation of the imagery which was later transferred to ‘Jesus as Christ’. We have the ‘Word’, the ‘Son of God’ and the ‘Rising’ One. What more do we need? Add a virgin birth, a few miracles, then a crucifixion with a ‘rising’ and we have it all.
Philo died shortly after 41 CE. These works were written considerably earlier, probably in the 20’s or 30’s of our era. In other words, about the time of Jesus’ ministry, or slightly before. These ideas were contemporary with Jesus and were studied by his followers trying to understand His message. That is if there was an ‘historical Jesus the Christ’ to consider at all.
Photius, 820-891 CE, ‘Bibliotheca’, cod. 33. Cited in Whiston’s Josephus’ p. 18 footnote.
“I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias, whose title is this, ‘The Chronology of the Kings of Judah, which succeeded one another.’ He begins his history from Moses, and ends it not till the death of Agrippa, the seventh ruler of the family of Herod, and the last king of the Jews; who took government under Claudius, had it augmented under Nero, and still more augmented by Vespasian.
He died in the third year of Trajan, where also his history ends. He is very concise in his language, and slightly passes over these affairs that were most necessary to be insisted on; and being under Jewish prejudices, as indeed he was himself a Jew by birth, he makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, or what things happened to Him, or of the wonderful works He did.
He was the son of a certain Jew, whose name was Pistus. He was a man, as he is described by Josephus, of a most profligate character; a slave to both money and to pleasures. In public affairs he was opposite to Josephus; and it is related that he laid many plots against him; but that Josephus, though he had his enemy frequently under his power, did only reproach him in words and so let him go without further punishment. He says also that the history which this man wrote is for the main fabulous and chiefly those parts where he describes the Roman war with the Jews, and the taking of Jerusalem.”
Johnson, P., A History of the Jews,
pp. 206-207
Even the Jewish historian, Josephus, had written the truth about Jesus (it was in fact an obvious interpolation when the manuscript chain was under Christian control), but the Jews set their faces against it. It was not ignorance. It was malice. Here is a comment from the twelfth-century historian Gerald of Wales:
‘even the testimony of their historian, whose books they have in Hebrew and consider authentic, they will not accept about Christ. But Master Robert, the Prior of St Frideswide at Oxford, whom we have seen and was old and trustworthy ... was skilled in the scriptures and knew Hebrew. He sent to diverse towns and cities of England in which Jews have dwellings, from whom he collected many Josephuses written in Hebrew ... and in two of them he found this testimony about Christ written fully and at length, but as if recently scratched out; but in all the rest removed earlier, as if never there. And when this was shown to the Jews of Oxford summoned for that purpose, they were convicted, and confused at this fraudulent malice and bad faith towards Christ.’
The tragedy of this Christian line of argument was that it led directly to a new kind of anti-Semitism. That the Jews could know the truth of Christianity and still reject it seemed such extraordinary behaviour that it could scarcely be human.
Works of Geraldis Cambrensis, Edited by J. S. Brewer, 1861-1891, Volume 8, p. 65
Also see Feldman, Josephus, and Cecil Roth.
Tacitus, Histories, 2, 1-5
Titus Vespasian had been sent from Judaea by his father while Galba still lived, and alleged as a reason for his journey the homage due to the Emperor, and his age, which now qualified him to compete for office. But the vulgar, ever eager to invent, had spread the report that he was sent for to be adopted. The advanced years and childless condition of the Emperor furnished matter for such gossip, and the country never can refrain from naming many persons until one be chosen. The report gained the more credit from the genius of Titus himself, equal as it was to the most exalted fortune, from the mingled beauty and majesty of his countenance, from the prosperous fortunes of Vespasian, from the prophetic responses of oracles, and even from accidental occurrences which, in the general disposition to belief, were accepted as omens. At Corinth, the capital of Achaia, he received positive information of the death of Galba, and found men who spoke confidently of the revolt of Vitellius and of the fact of war.
In the anxiety of his mind, he sent a few of his friends, and carefully surveyed his position from both points of view. He considered that if he should proceed to Rome, he should get no thanks for a civility intended for another, while his person would be a hostage in the hands either of Vitellius or of Otho; that should he turn back, the conqueror would certainly be offended, but with the issue of the struggle still doubtful, and the father joining the party, the son would be excused; on the other hand, if Vespasian should assume the direction of the state, men who had to think of war would have to forget such causes of offence.
These and like thoughts made him waver between hope and fear; but hope triumphed. Some supposed that he retraced his steps for love of Queen Berenice, nor was his young heart averse to her charms, but this affection occasioned no hindrance to action. He passed, it is true, a youth enlivened by pleasure, and practised more self-restraint in his own than in his father's reign. So, after coasting Achaia and Asia, leaving the land on his left, he made for the islands of Rhodes and Cyprus, and then by a bolder course for Syria. Here he conceived a desire to visit and inspect the temple of the Paphian Venus, place of celebrity both among natives and foreigners.
It will not be a tedious digression to record briefly the origin of the worship....
Titus, after surveying the treasures, the royal presents, and the other objects which the antiquarian tendencies of the Greek arbitrarily connect with some uncertain past, first consulted the oracle about his voyage. Receiving an answer that the way was open and the sea propitious, he then, after sacrificing a number of victims, asked some questions in ambiguous phrase concerning himself. Sostratus (that was the name of the priest) seeing that the entrails presented an uniformly favourable appearance, and that the goddess signified her favour to some great enterprise, returned at the moment a brief and ordinary answer, but afterwards soliciting a private interview, disclosed the future.
His spirits raised, Titus rejoined his father, and was received as a mighty pledge of success by the wavering minds of the provincials and the troops. Vespasian had all but completed the Jewish war, and only the siege of Jerusalem now remained, an operation, the difficulty and arduousness of which was due, rather to the character of its mountain citadel and the perverse obstinacy of the national superstition, than to any sufficient means of enduring extremities left to the besieged. As we have mentioned above, Vespasian himself had three legions inured to war. Mucianus had four under his command in his peaceful province. Emulation, however, and the glory won by the neighbouring army had banished all tendency to sloth, and unbroken rest and exemption from the hardships of war had given them a vigour equivalent to the hardihood which the others had gained by their perils and their toils. Each had auxiliary forces of infantry and cavalry, each had fleets and tributary kings, and each, though their renown was of a different kind, had a celebrated name.
Recognitions, 4. 35
CHAP.
XXXV.--FALSE APOSTLES.
"Wherefore observe the greatest
caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the
testimonial of James the Lord's brother,
or of whosoever may come after him.[4] For no one, unless he has gone up
thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for
preaching the word of Christ,--unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence,
is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked
for by you at this time, besides us. For there is one true Prophet, whose words
we twelve apostles preach; for He is the accepted year of God, having us
apostles as His twelve months. But for what reason the world itself was made,
or what diversities have occurred in it, and why our Lord, coming for its
restoration, has chosen and sent us twelve apostles, shall be explained more at
length at another time. Meantime He has commanded us to go forth to preach, and
to invite you to the supper of the heavenly King, which the Father hath
prepared for the marriage of His Son, and that we should give you wedding
garments, that is, the grace of baptism;[5] which whosoever obtains, as a
spotless robe with which he is to enter to the supper of the King, ought to
beware that it be not in any part of it stained with sin, and so he be rejected
as unworthy and reprobate.
Homilies 11.35.
CHAP.
XXXV.--"BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS."
Then after three months were fulfilled, he
ordered me to fast for several days, and then brought me to the fountains that
are near to the sea, and baptized me as in ever-flowing water. Thus, therefore,
when our brethren rejoiced at my God-gifted regeneration, not many days after
he turned to the elders in presence of all the church, and charged them,
saying: "Our Lord and Prophet, who hath sent us, declared to us that the
wicked one, having disputed with Him forty days, and having prevailed nothing
against Him, promised that he would send apostles from amongst his subjects, to
deceive. Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or teacher or prophet
who does not first accurately compare his preaching with that of James, who was called the brother of my
Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the church of the Hebrews in
Jerusalem,--and that even though he come to you with witnesses:(4) lest the
wickedness which disputed forty days with the Lord, and prevailed nothing,
should afterwards, like lightning falling from heaven upon the earth,
292
send
a preacher to your injury, as now he has sent Simon upon us, preaching, under
pretence of the truth, in the name of the Lord, and sowing error. Wherefore He
who hath sent us, said, 'Many shall come to me in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.'"
Richard of Cirencester, 1335-1401, ‘Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum Angliae, 447-1066’, (edited Prof. Mayor, Rolls series, 1863-69), pp. 444-445
Ch. 6, #26. “I now proceed to the Flavian province: but for want of authentic documents, am unable to ascertain whether it derived its name from Flavia Julia Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, who was born in these parts, or from the Flavian family.
#28. to which Lucan alludes - ‘Territa quesitis ostendit terga Britannis’. But on the coming of Claudius, they, with the neighbouring people, were subdued, and their country reduced to a Roman province, first called Caesarinesis, and afterwards Flavia.
#29 “Near to the Cassii, where the river Thamesis (Thames) approaches the ocean... Londinium their metropolis, and Camalodunum situated near the sea for the purpose of establishing colonies.
In this city was supposed to be born Flavia Julia Helena, the pious wife of Constantine Chlorus and mother of Constantine the Great, who descended from the blood of British kings. It was a chief colony of the Romans in Britain, and distinguished by a temple of Claudius, an image of Victory, with many ornaments. But Londinium was and will ever be a city of great eminence.
Translated into English by Wade Blocker:
1. And indeed in the 45th year from the suffering (passion) of the Lord, the Roman empire ruling, in the time of the emperors Titus and Vespasian, in (near?) Jerusalem at (in?) the Golden Gate, religious women (female religious order?) settled, in the seventh year of the rule of Vespasian.
NOTE: or perhaps it ought to be translated: "in (near?) Jerusalem at (in?) the Golden Gate, they settled religiously (devoutly, for religious purposes?). The word "religiose" might be an adverb here, or it might be the medieval spelling for "religiosae" in which case it could mean "religious women". There is not enough context to know which is best.
NOTE: The phrase "regnante Romano imperio" is an ablative absolute expression denoting attendant circumstances which can be variously translated. The phrase "the Roman empire ruling" is a literal translation. It might be better to translate it "under the rule of the Roman empire" or some such similar expression.
2. Furthermore in the 45th year after the suffering (passion) of (our) Lord, Titus and Vespasian. the emperors of the Romans, with a great army, in order to avenge the death of Christ, in the seventh year of their reign, capturing (having captured) Jerusalem and the Jewish people, dismissed (sent away, let go) unharmed the afore mentioned sons of the prophets honored with gifts because of their reverence for Christ, as is clearly declared in the Jerusalem History.
3. Whence in the Roman Chronicles is read thus: "It was in the time of the preaching of Jesus Chrisst that they summoned (sent for) brothers from (of) Mount Caramel. And certain of them in the seventh year from the passion (suffering) of the Lord, the Roman empire ruling, and in the time of the emperors Titus and Vespasian, settled devoutly (religiously, for religious purposes?) near (in) Jerusalem at (in) the Golden Gate, in which place in the time of the blessed apostle Peter they took a stand for the catholic faith in diverse places in the region adjacent on all sides to the Antioch church(?) itself."
Paraphus III
4. Then the darkness went away, light came into the world. They heard our Lord Jesus Christ preaching. Who devoutly (translation of "religiose"?) receiving the catholic faith were baptized in Christ. Whence in the Roman Chronicles is thus read: "In the time of the preaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, they summoned (invited?) brothers from Mount Carmel. And certain of them in the 7th year from the passion (suffering) of the Lord, the Roman empire ruling, before the time of the emperors Titus and Vespasian, settled devoutly(?) near (in?) Jerusalem at (in?) the Golden Gate. In which place in the time of the blessed apostle Peter they took a stand for the catholic faith in diverse places in the region adjacent on all sides to the church itself of Antioch."
5. In the year 5184 of the creation of the world, in the year 910 of the translation of Saint Elias into paradise and the taking(?) [maybe "placing?", translation of "praelatia"] of the blessed Eliseus (spelling?) above (over) the sons of the prophets Caarmelitas, the Word became flesh, borne of the virgin Maria.
In the year 83 from the incarnation of the Word of God, in the year 50 from the passion (suffering) of our same Lord, and the year 7 from the laying waste of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian, the Carmelites called thus in honor of the Virgin mother are selected to build a chapel (church?) on (Mount) Carmel.
NOTE: The third line of the paragraph just above is a shaky translation. A better translation might be: ...Vespasian, the Carmelites so called are selected to build a chapel (church?) on (Mount) Carmel in honor of the Virgin mother.
6. Likewise in a certain ancient chronicle, which is called the Roman Chronicle, of the time of the emperors Titus and Vespasian, it is said thus: "Of (from, in?) the time of the prophets Elias(spelling?) and Eliseus(spelling?) who tarried (lingered, spent time, lived?) on Mount Carmel, close by the city of Nazareth of our Lord, devout men were accustomed to live apart up to the time of the Savior [that is the literal translation, but does it perhaps mean "in expectation of the coming of the Savior" or "to the time of the coming of the Savior"?]. Who finally confirmed (strengthened) in faith by the preaching apostles first constructed on one side of the same mountain a church in honor of the blessed virgin Maria.
7. Likewise in the same chronicle is elsewhere found: "It was in the time of the preaching of Jesus Christ that hermits (anchorites) from Mount Carmel entered Jerusalem. Certain of whom in the year 47 from the suffering (passion) of the Lord, the Roman empire ruling under Titus and Vespasian, settled devoutly(?) near (in?) Jerusalem at the Golden Gate. Some truly in the time of the blessed apostle Peter advocated in behalf of (took a stand for, preached for?) the catholic faith in diverse places in the region adjacent on all sides to the church of Antioch itself."
I have translated this material to the best of my ability. It is a little difficult since the meanings of a lot of words in late latin and medieval latin can differ considerably from their meanings in classical latin, which last are the meanings you learn in usual latin courses. One of the problems is that there are no comprehensive dictionaries of this later latin easily available and the word meanings are very diverse depending upon just when the document was written.
For instance, the word "capella" in classical latin means "little goat" but in your document above "capella" means something like "chapel" or "church" which meaning you can not find in a classical latin dictionary, but only in dictionaries specialising in late latin or medieval latin. Also many later writers were so uneducated in latin grammar, vocabulary, and spelling that no dictionary presents all the variations in meaning and usage that occur.
I am still not sure how I should have translated the word "religiose" in this material. I could not find it in any dictionary I have. Classically it would be an adverb meaning "religiously" but who knows what it means medievally. Also as I pointed out above it could be the medieval spelling for "religiosae" which is a plural feminine noun meaning "religious women" or a variation of that meaning. Maybe "devoutly" is the best translation.
It would probably require an expert in late and medieval latin to produce a really definitive translation of this material, if it can be done at all. I really think that in many cases we can not be sure that we truly understand what the writer's meaning in a bit of latin was. There is no such thing as a unique translation from one language into another. When I read the Loeb translation into English of some of the latin writers I very frequently disagree with the translation, and the translators are supposed to be experts.
Christopher Marlow; “The Jew of Malta”, act two, scene three:
Barabas: In spite of these swine-eating Christians,
(Unchosen nation, never circumcis’d,
Such as, poor villains, were ne’er thought upon
Till Titus and Vespasian conquer’d us,)
I am become as wealthy as I was.
Eusebius draws a Christian conclusion to just about anything that suits his purpose of demonstrating the antiquity of the new religion. Eusebius draws on Josephus, especially the famous, or infamous, Flavian Testimony. Eusebius also uses the first century Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus. In his History Eusebius writes:
Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle... “The elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son.”.. They say that this Mark was the first to be sent to preach in Egypt the Gospel which he had also put into writing, and was the first to establish churches in Alexandria itself. The number of men and women who were converted at the first attempt was so great, and their asceticism was so extraordinary philosophic, that Philo[1] thought it right to describe their conduct and assemblies and meals and all the rest of their manner of life.[2]
He says that they and the women with them were called Therapeutae and Therapeutides, and enters upon the reason for such a name... since the title of Christian had not yet become well known everywhere... But if anyone doubt that what has been said is peculiar to life according to the Gospel, and think it can be applied to others besides those indicated, let him be persuaded by the following words of Philo in which he will find, if he be fair, indisputable testimony on this point. ...We think that these words of Philo are clear and indisputably refer to our communion.[3]
In the Translator’s, introduction to The Contemplative Life attention is brought to this passage from Eusebius:
It [the Life] owes its fame to the controversies which have raged round it since the fourth century. The thing began when Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 17 discovered in the Therapeutae a picture of the first Christian converts. After noting the traditional evangelization of Alexandria by St. Mark, he declares that no one could possibly doubt that Philo was referring to the first generation of his converts... Nowadays it seems needless to argue that the theory has no foundation whatever.[4]
Philo was born about 30 BCE and died after 41 CE. The Contemplative Life was written as a ‘counterpart to his description of the Essenes which is found, mainly, in his early work Every Good Man is Free. These two works are thought to be early works of Philo because of the secular nature of his examples, whereas in his later works almost all of his examples are from the Old Testament. They must have been written before Philo was more than thirty years old. This means that the dating of Mark’s evangelism in Alexandria by the overly enthusiastic Eusebius is clearly impossible. That Philo could be describing established Christians before Christ is absurd, and with it the whole story of Mark. Only pious hopes would maintain that connection.
In the Life Philo mentions that the Therapeutae ‘anointed’, themselves every seventh day.
They anoint the body, releasing it just as you might the lower animals from the long spell of toil.[5]
We are following the translation of Conybeare as given in the notes to the Loeb text. This is the only mention of these ‘anointed ones’ in the early literature that has survived. One must wonder if this essay owes its preservation to the supposed mention of the early Christians?
The practice of anointing reminds one of the Gospels where it is Jesus who is anointed. The ‘Christ’ means ‘the Anointed One’ in Greek. If these people that Philo mentions did anoint themselves they could be the proto-type of the early Christian communities. The Christians in the fourth century certainly thought this was the case.
In the history by Sulpicius, from the fourth century, there is a mention of ‘Jews and Christianos’ as being the subjects of the same curse. They are put together as those who will wither when the root of the temple is destroyed. In a footnote from the Introduction of Josephus’ War the translator says:
Dr. Eisler suggests that “Christiani” [Anointed Ones] may be a general designation for Jewish “Messianst” rebels; but here I hesitate to follow him.[6]
As a Christian first and a historian second he certainly would ‘hesitate’ in following such a radical belief as a pre-existing sect of ‘Christiani’ before Christ!
Perhaps the ‘Christiani’ are the Therapeutae about whom Philo writes. The early Christian monastic movement must have had some connection, or at least contact, with these communities. Philo himself used to go into desert seclusion on occasion:
For many a time have I myself forsaken friends and kinsfolk and country and come into a wilderness, to give my attention to some subject demanding contemplation.[7]
This is probably how he came to know of the sect and to write with such approval of them. They certainly seem to be the model the early Christians attempted to follow: Community of goods, a chaste life spent in worship, communal meals and worship on the seventh day. A life spent in the mystical contemplation of God would be an attractive alternative to the rough and tumble of life under Imperial Rome. These communities must have flourished long before the Christians came along and appropriated whatever was good in the old religious practices.
Philo states that this kind of life was widespread in the ancient world of his time:
This kind exists in many places in the inhabited world [oikoumenhV], for perfect goodness must needs be shared both by Greeks and the world outside Greece.[8]
This is perhaps what the early Christians encountered in their spreading missionary activity. This is almost a ready-made environment for the Christian evangelists and monasticism. It is in this essay of Philo’s that we first find the word ‘monastery’ (Greek = monasterion). The next mention of the term is not found until “the end of the third century, when it has acquired the sense of a building or establishment for a single monk or hermit.”[9] In the original sense, as found in Philo, it designated one room in a house where a person could retire in seclusion for meditation.
Desposyn.doc
[In this chapter Eusebius, History of the Church, is quoting from Julius Africanus
Book 1, chapter 7.
“But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
...Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called, Desposyni on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazaraeth and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of Chronicles as faithfully as possible.
Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth [?]."
[The following is from Hegesippus.]
Bk 3, ch. 12
He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.
Bk 3, ch. 17
...Vespasian had planned no evil against us.
Bk 3, ch. 19 & 20
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude, on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor." Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.
Bk 3, ch. 32
The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. He writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witness and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan.”
Eusebius’ sources for these passages.
He is quoting from the Letter to Aristides of Julius Africanus c. 240 CE, also found in A-N. F., volume 6. Julius Africanus was an early Christian Chronographer and literary critic. As such he was very interested in the family of Jesus and its lineage. His work on the first century and a half CE is hopelessly inaccurate and self-contridictory.
Hegesippus is apparently from the 3rd century. We only know of him through Eusebius. Hegesippus mistakenly has Vespasian at the siege of Jerusalem, when it was his son Titus who besieged the city. Vespasian was ruling in Rome at the time. The Jewish Talmud makes the same mistake in reference to Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, who was spirited out of the besieged city, by his disciples, in a coffin. He was supposed to have been granted a safe haven for himself and his scholars in Jamnia by Vespasian. Josephus does not record the incident, but, another where Titus grants a safe haven to some priests at Gophna. War 6. 2. 2.]
Saul/Paul himself, if the Letter to the Philippians is truely his, gives the act away:
All the Saints send their greetings, especially those of the Imperial household. Phil. 4:22
Members of the ‘Imperial household’ or more properly ‘Caesar’s house’ were the Emperor’s men or Desposyni.
Notes
The Romans had control over the appointment of client kings by a decree of the senate.
The Jews thought it vitally important to be able to trace back their lineage to the patriarchs. The story of Herod destroying the archives is just another slander, they were destroyed by the Romans in the conquest of Judea.
The Georae are defined as small ‘land holders’, such as we find below with the two descendants of David.
Desposyni = the Despot’s men. The Emperor’s men! Liddell and Scott define the word as referring to the Imperial service, or household, in Roman times. It does not seem an appropriate appellation for the family of the Saviour.
Nazaraeth and Cochaba, villages of Judea? Nazaraeth is in Galilee not Judea, and Cochaba is otherwise unknown as a place name. Simon bar Cochaba was the leader, Messiah, of the second Jewish war which ended in 135 CE. What is Eusebius doing here?
A standard Christian stance, held in the face of facts, that In any case the Gospel states the truth.
There is a contradiction with these two passages about Vespasian. In the first Vespasian sought out the lineage of David, presumably to destroy them.
In this second notice, probably by Eusebius himself, Vespasian had planned no evil against us, which is in direct contradiction to the previous passage from Africanus. It was unlikely to have been Vespasian in the first place, but, rather Titus.
Domitian is then credited with the seeking out of the descendants of David. He had the last of the family of David brought before him for examination as to the possible danger they may threaten the empire.
The only two descendants of David turned out to be poor land holders, Georae, with a piece of land only thirty-nine acres, which they farmed by their own labor.
When questioned about their concept of their Christian
kingdom. They replied with a politically safe answer that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom,
and that it was far in the future and would
appear at the end of the world.
Domitian despising them as of no account, he let them go, they were considered to be no threat to the empire.
The descendants of David go into the Emperor’s presence as poor peasants; But when they were released they ruled the churches? This is quite a promotion.
They took the lead of every church and they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, who ruled 98-117 CE.
I have not been able to find a contemporary Jewish source which describes what or who a Messiah is, how to identify him, nor exactly what he was supposed to do. Searching the Jewish Scriptures reveals nothing concrete about the house of David producing a Messiah.
There is a passage from an 8th c. BCE prophet, Isaiah, where the house of David will be given a sign [7: 10-14]. A son will be born of a young woman, not a virgin, and he will be called ‘Immanuel’. Isaiah is addressing king Ahaz, from the house of David, before the destruction and exile of the Jews to Babylon.
The anointed kings start with Saul, and David. Then David’s son, Solomon, was anointed by the priest Zadok. The last anointed king, according to Isaiah, [45:1], is the Persian king Cyrus, anointed by God, who will save Israel.
In the Christian Scriptures Matthew mentions the son of David ten times, Mark three (in two passages) and Luke as many as Mark. Both Mark and Luke share their passages with, or from, Matthew. It is Matthew who has introduced the concept of a Messiah being from the house of David [22:42]. In other contemporary Jewish literature, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was an expectation of a Messiah of Aaron. In Exodus [40:13-15] Aaron is anointed, as are his sons. The additional anointing of Aaron’s sons meant that there would be a perpetual priesthood in his descendants. Many also looked for a Messiah from the sons of Zadok. But no Messiah of David?
Perhaps the Davidic Messiah is particular to the Christians. Anyhow, the Isaiah prophecy had Immanuel as the promised sign, not Jeshua, or ‘Jesus’ as we spell his name. As for Christ = anointed, in the Christian Scriptures there are fourteen anointings; the sick, the blind, Jesus’s feet, and his body after death. John has Simon notified that they “have found the Messiah (which is translated anointed)” [1:41]. But John nowhere identifies Jesus with the House of David.
If the Romans were searching out royal pretenders to the kingship of Judea they certainly would have been after the unauthorised members of Herod’s family who might have a claim. Or, perhaps the house of the Maccabees, the Hasmoneans, could still have been a threat? The house of David had not ruled Judea since before the Exile and, therefore, could not have been a problem for the Romans.
Why were the descendants of David called the ‘emperor’s men’, Desposyni? The only, lame, excuse given by the Christian writers is that they were the ‘Master’s men’, the Master being Jesus. The Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon does not support this usage of Desposyni, especially in the Roman period. It unequivocally means ‘members of the Imperial service’. The emperor questioned two peasants and released them, when they then become rulers of the Churches everywhere. Were they Imperial men before or only after the interview with the emperor?
If the Romans were out to destroy a royal house which was threatening them, property value would not come into the equation. It was not the material worth as much as the blood-line which was at issue. Josephus has Herod the Great search out his predecessors’ Hasmonean house, to the last man. But no mention is made of a Davidic threat. The Massacre of the Innocents is an anachronistic Christian slander of Herod, as is Jesus’ birth in David’s city of Bethlehem. If Jesus’ family went to David’s city for the Roman census, (6 CE), Herod would have been dead for ten years, (d. 4 BCE).
The question remains; why the house of David? The Jews were not expecting a Messiah from David, but from Aaron or Zadok. Is this Davidic Messiah merely a product of the Christians? Or, is it a piece of propaganda from the Desposyni - the Imperial House?
Lives of the Philosophers, Loeb. [d. 414 C.E.]
#461, p. 379
I had nothing to record, partly because Aedesius [the philosopher] himself kept it secret owing to the times (for Constantine was emperor and was pulling down the most celebrated temples and building Christian churches).
#471-472, pp. 421-425
For, on its account of its temple of Serapis, Alexandria was a world in itself, a world consecrated to religion...
Now, not long after [391 C.E.], an unmistakable sign was given that there was in him [the philosopher Antonius] some diviner element. For, no sooner had he left the world of men than the cult of the temples of Alexandria and at the shrine of Serapis was scattered to the winds, and not only the ceremonies of the cult but the buildings as well,...
The temples at Canobus suffered the same fate in the reign of Theodosius, when Theophilus [bishop of Alexandria] presided over the abominable ones... and Evagrius was prefect of the city, and Romanus in command of the legions in Egypt. For these men [Christians] girding themselves in their wrath against our sacred places as though against stones and stone-masons, made a raid on the temples, and though they could not allege even a rumour of war to justify them, they demolished the temple of Serapis and made war against the temple offerings, whereby they won a victory without meeting a foe or fighting a battle. In this fashion they fought so honourably against the statues and votive offerings that they not only conquered but stole them as well, and their only military tactics were to ensure that the thief should escape detection. Only the floor of the temple of Serapis they did not take, simply because of the weight of the stones which were not easy to move from their place...
Next, into the sacred places they imported monks, as they called them, who were men in appearance but led the life of swine, and openly did and allowed countless unspeakable crimes. But this they accounted piety, to show contempt for things divine. For in those days every man who wore a black robe and consented to behave in unseemly fashion in public, possessed the power of a tyrant, to such a pitch of virtue had the human race advanced! All this however I have described in my Universal History. They settled these monks at Canobus also, and thus they fettered the human race to the worship of slaves, and those not even honest slaves, instead of the true gods. For they collected the bones and skulls of criminals, men whom the law courts of the city had condemned to punishment, made them out to be gods, haunted the sepulchres, and thought they became better by defiling themselves at their graves. “Martyrs” the dead men were called, and “ministers” of a sort, and “ambassadors” from the gods to carry men’s prayers.
#476, p. 439
It was the time [395 C.E.] when Alaric with his barbarians invaded Greece by the pass of Thermopylae, as easily as though he were traversing an open stadium or a plain suitable for cavalry. For this gateway of Greece was thrown open to him by the impiety of the men clad in black raiment, who entered Greece unhindered along with him.
The reference to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities, 18. 3. 3. is an interpolation. The whole of Chapter 3 has five paragraphs: the first two deal with Pilate’s reaction to the Jewish protests; then the mention of Jesus in paragraph 3; the banishment of the Egyptian cult of Isis in paragraph. 4; and the Jewish banishment in the last paragraph, 5.
Chapter 3; The Calamities of the Jews.
1. Pilate, the ensigns’ images and the Jewish protests.
2. Pilate’s massacre of the protesting Jews.
3. The Jesus passage?
4. Fraud of the cult of Isis and their expulsion from Rome.
5. Fraud of the Jews ending in their expulsion from Rome.
Paragraph 1 introduces Pilate with the incident of the ensigns at Jerusalem.
Paragraph 2 has the second, disastrous, encounter with Pilate which ends; “and thus an end was put to this sedition.”
Paragraph 4 begins “About this time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder;...” and ends; “I now return to the relation of what happened to the Jews at Rome, as I formally told you I would.”
Paragraph 5 then goes on to give an account of the calamity of the Jews at Rome being caused by four renegades.
Paragraph 3, containing the only reference to Jesus as Messiah, is thus an obvious interpolation into the middle of the calamities of the Jews. It is merely inserted there because it follows on from the account of Pilate, although it has no reference to either the earlier or the following paragraphs. It is completely isolated in its context. Yet most of the Christian study on the passage isolates the paragraph from its context and studies it from the internal evidence alone.
There is another problem with the placing of the Jesus Passage. The date, derived from Suetonius’ Life of Tiberius [36], of the banishment of the Egyptian and Jewish cults from Rome took place early in his reign [38]. The date is supported by Tacitus, [Annals II. 80>, Pen. p. 118], as in the year 19 CE. This is far too early for Jesus to have any bearing on the Jew’s problems.
If we examine Josephus more broadly we find an interesting sequence in the chapters: Book 18 chapter 2, paragraph 2, gives the succession of governors of Judea, ending with Pilate.
Para. 3. Deals with Herod Antipas building Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee.
Para 4. Has the history of disturbances in the East.
Para 5. Has an account of Germanicus’ death, by poisoning. Germanicus was sent to quell the disturbances in the East. It was thought that Piso, the governor of Syria, was put up to the murder by Tiberius. This is dated to 19 CE. The event is mentioned in Suetonius [52] and Tacitus, [Annals, book II].
Chapter 3 contains the contents already mentioned. It follows immediately after the death of Germanicus, 19 CE . The first two paragraphs are about Pilate’s confrontation with the Jews of Judea. Josephus, [ignoring the ‘Jesus’ paragraph 3], opens paragraph 4 with the words ‘About the same time...” and tells about the banishment of the Egyptian and Jewish cults in 19 CE.
The sequence goes: Germanicus’ death 19 CE, Pilate?, Jesus ?, and then the banishments 19 CE. Why is Pilate, not to mention Jesus, inserted in this place? We have two historians attesting to the date of the banishment by Tiberius, Tacitus and Suetonius. Josephus links the incident with Pilate?
Chapter 4 tells of Pilate’s action against the Samaritans, and his recall to Rome. So, chapters 2, 3 and 4 all mention Pilate, for the only time in the Antiquities. His responsibility for the harsh measures mentioned in the Jewish War are softened up somewhat in the Antiquities
There are a few problems with the John passage in Josephus. First, and most importantly, is that it also appears to be an interpolation into the Antiquities. Chapter five of book eighteen has four paragraphs. Paragraph one ends with:
5. 1. (Tiberius) wrote to Vitellius, to make war upon him (Aretas the Arabian),... this was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.
Paragraph three, omitting the John the Baptist passage in paragraph two, begins with:
5. 3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men...
The two paragraphs were obviously meant to be read in order, paragraph one is directly followed by paragraph three and makes correct sense without the John paragraph, which interrupts the narrative.
Josephus usually connects his paragraphs either by informing the reader of what to expect in the next, or he refers back to a point in the last paragraph. In this chapter, five, the first and third paragraphs are connected, as we have just noted. The third paragraph foreshadows what is to follow in the fourth; ie. Herod’s posterity and their several fates.
The only connection between paragraph one and the Baptist passage is the mention of the fortress of Macherus, where John was supposed to have been beheaded. However, there is another problem which precludes the authority of this passage. In the first paragraph Macherus is subject to Aretas, whose daughter flees there to escape, when she finds out about Herod’s secret plan to marry Herodias.
5. 1. She [Aretas’s daughter] desired him [Herod] to send her to Macherus, which is a place on the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking she had not perceived anything; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father, and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas’s army, and by that means she soon came to Arabia... to her father, and told him of Herod’s intentions.
But in the second paragraph, the John passage, Macherus is in the hands of Herod?
5. 2. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus,...
These two events were supposed to have happened around the same time, the date is given specifically in the third paragraph. As Vitellius was on the march he was informed of the death of the emperor:
5. 3. But on the fourth day letters came to him [Vitellius], which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made every one of them go home.
Tiberius died and Caius Caligula succeeded to the empire in the year 37 CE. This puts the Baptist passage in the middle of two paragraphs dating from 37; several years after the traditional dates, 29 to 30 CE, of John the Baptist’s execution and, incidentally, Jesus’ baptism.
Therefore, I have grave suspicions about the historical reference to John the Baptist in Josephus. It is out of context with the surrounding paragraphs - Macherus was subject to the Arabs, not Herod - The passage is located far too late in time to fit the traditional date of John’s death, by about seven or eight years.
Pelikan, J., Historical Theology, Corpus, New York, 1971
The Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins, was written in 434. “His well-known canon of Catholicity, that ‘one must take the greatest possible care to believe what has been believed everywhere, ever, by everyone.’” [p. 4]
Within the ‘ever’ there were evidently some eras more normative that others; in general, the more ancient the belief, the greater weight it carried. But that was not simply a chronological test; the true doctrine was the most ancient because it was true, it was not true because it was ancient. [5]
He [Vincent] was especially ardent in his admiration of Origen - his piety, his erudition, his literary production, his eloquence. But none of these qualities protected Origen from going astray in his doctrine, from supposing that he knew more than anyone else, and from ‘despising the traditions of the Church and determinations of the ancients, interpreting certain passages of Scripture in a novel way.’ [6]
Epiphanius listed a long catalogue of Origen’s errors, from which it was clear that Origen was not only a heretic himself, but the originator of many heresies. [22]
Both the theologians of the 5th century and the churchmen of the 6th believed themselves to be in a position to pass dogmatic judgement upon a theologian of the 3rd century - and not only a theologian but the theologian without whom the subsequent development of their own orthodoxy is historically inconceivable. [24]
It cannot be denied, for example, that these condemnations of the dead - as well as many condemnations of the living - have frequently been brought about more by political than by theological considerations. So it was, for example, with the condemnation of Origen by Justinian. [24]
Christie-Murray, D., A History Of
Heresy, Oxford, 1976, 99. 108-109
The Toulouse Council [c. 1230] forbade the laity possession of the
Bible, especially in the vernacular, except the Psalms and passages to be found
in the breviary. It also systematized and elaborated the Inquisition, probably
the most potent and certainly the most feared instrument ever used by the
Catholic Church to cauterize heresy.
The remnants of the Cathari fled to the Balkans, where they formed the
greater part of the population until the fifteenth century. Eventually the
Turkish religion absorbed them and they disappeared as an organized body.
Few heresies could survive against the power of the orthodox, once the
Catholic Church flexed its muscles. Heretics were weaker or fewer. Even if
locally stronger they lacked the organization to oppose the juggernaut
hierarchy of Rome backed by the civil power. Formal condemnation put them
outside the law. When faced by eloquent and persuasive preaching like St
Dominic's, the weakness of their opinions, illiterate as many heretics were,
was often revealed to them. The Inquisition and the use of the civil arm were
finally too much for them. By about 1350, the heresies of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries were mostly dead. Yet they remained rooted in southern
France like weeds, emerging in later centuries in full strength as will be
seen.
The Inquisition has been mentioned, and for convenience' sake its
history and organization, as well as the progress of the actions against heresy
undertaken by governments, are summarized here. In 1184 Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa made outlawry the punishment for heretics. Thirteen years later
Pedro of Aragon was the first to institute death at the stake as their fate.
Aquinas (1224/5-c. 1274) lent the weight of his great scholastic authority to
action by secular powers when he wrote that heretics were not to be tolerated
but excommunicated and handed over to the civil power for execution. Aquinas
was some six years old when Pope Gregory IX reorganized the Inquisition,
inspired, according to some historians, by Raymond of Pennaforte, Confessor to
the King of Argon, who visited the Pope in 1230 to enlist his help against
heresy. Three years afterwards Gregory transferred the control of proceedings
against heretics from the bishops' courts to special commissioners chosen from
Franciscan and Dominican friars. Innocent IV (1243-54) added the use of
torture, to be administered by the secular authority, but this proving
impracticable, inquisitors and their assistants were allowed to absolve one
another for using torture to ‘promote the work of faith more truly'.
A suspect, however powerful or distinguished, once hauled before the
Inquisition, was judged guilty unless he could prove his innocence. This was an
all but impossible task, so heavily were the dice loaded against him. The
evidence of wives, children, servants and persons heretical, excommunicated,
perjured and criminal could be used against a man, secretly and without their
having to face him, their charges being communicated to him only in summary
form. Perjury was pardoned if it was the outcome of zeal for the faith,
obedience to a superior was forbidden if it hindered the inquiry, and those who
helped inquisitors were granted the same indulgences as pilgrims to the Holy
Land. Any advocate acting and any witness giving evidence on behalf of a
suspect laid themselves open to charges of abetting heresy. No one was ever
acquitted, a released person always being liable to rearrest and a condemned
one to a revised sentence with no retrial, at the discretion of the inquisitor.
All proceedings were in secret. Legally torture could be inflicted only once,
but was repeated as often as necessary on the pretext that it was the same
torture continued, with intervals between the sessions.
Only the sentences were made public, on Sundays at high mass in the
cathedral, attended by the civil authorities. Penitents confessed and abjured
their heresy publicly before going to their penance (not called punishment or
penalty), consisting of periods of imprisonment up to life sentences, the
wearing of crosses, flogging and going on pilgrimage. The obdurate and relapsed
were taken outside the church and handed to the magistrates with a
recommendation to mercy and instruction that no blood be shed. The supreme
hypocrisy of this was that if the magistrate did not burn the victims on the
following day, he was himself liable to be charged with abetting heresy.
Heretics who repented at the last moment after condemnation to death
were given life imprisonment, and relapsed heretics were burned without mercy.
But the object of the Inquisition above all other considerations was to obtain
a confession, as this strengthened the Church's authority - the burning of an
obdurate represented the victory of an individual over ecclesiastical
sovereignty and its failure in spite of all its power.
The organization of the Inquisition was thorough. Districts were set up
corresponding to the Provinces of the Mendicant Order to which the inquisitor
appointed for each district belonged. Each such official had a staff of agents
who acted as police, spies and torturers....
To return to national measures against heresy, in the twelfth century
the Emperor Frederick II brought in death by burning throughout the Empire, and
in Sicily. France formally promulgated the same penalty in 1270, thus legally
recognizing a practice which had been in use for years. The English statute, de heretico
comburendo, was not enacted until 1401 - one disadvantage in being an
offshore island is that the refinements of civilization take somewhat longer to
arrive.
Jesus was tried and immediately executed, under Tiberius, according to the gospels.
(Luke 3:2) In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. [29 CE]
On Tiberius’ delays in death sentences Josephus states:
And as a further attestation to what I say of the dilatory nature of Tiberius, I appeal to this his practice itself; for although he was emperor twenty-two years, he sent in all but two procurators to govern the nation of the Jews - Gratus, and his successor in the government, Pilate. Nor was he in one way of acting with respect to the Jews, and in another respect to the rest of his subjects. He further informed them, that even in the hearing of the causes of prisoners, he made such delays, because immediate death to those who are condemned to die, would be an alleviation of their present miseries, while those wicked wretches have not deserved any favour; “but I do that, by being harassed with the present calamity, they may undergo greater misery.” [Ant. 18. 6. 5.]
[1] Philo, The Contemplative Life, (On the Therapeutae). Loeb, vol. 9
[2] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2. 16.
[3] Eusebius, History, 2. 17.
[4] Philo, Introduction, F. H. Colson, vol. 9, p. 106.
[5] Philo, Life, 36, note a, Coynbeare’s translation.
[6] Josephus, Jewish War, Loeb, Introduction, Vol. 1, p. XXV.
[7] Philo, Allegorical Interpretation, LA, 85. Loeb, Vol. 1, p. 279
[8] Philo, Life, 21.