Christianism ("Christianity"), Etc.

Addendum


ADDENDUM

from: The Rise of Christendom, Edwin Johnson [1842 - 1901] [see 1882],

"Quis nescit primam esse historiae legem ne quid falsi dicere audeat, deinde ne quid veri non audeat? ne quae suspicio gratiae sit in scribendo? ne quae simultatis?"--Cic. de Or. ii. 15.

[from: Cicero De Oratore, II:15 (Loeb Classical Library): "Nam quis nescit, primam esse historiae legem, ne quid falsi dicere audeat? Deinde ne quid veri non audeat? Ne qua suspicio gratiae sit in scribendo? Ne qua simultatis?"

Translation: "For who does not know history's first law to be that an author must not dare to tell anything but the truth? And its second that he must make bold to tell the whole truth? That there must be no suggestion of partiality anywhere in his writings? Nor of malice?"]

Watts, n.d. (1890).

Comment: I cannot vouch for the ideas of Father Jean Hardouin [1646 - 1729], or, Edwin Johnson [1842 - 1901]. What is valid? What is not? As a minimum, the ideas are excellent training.

Both men have outstanding credentials. For Father Jean Hardouin, see: Appendix III, 717-732]. For Edwin Johnson, see (rare): The Rise of English Culture [see 1882], by Edwin Johnson, Williams and Norgate; G.P. Putnam's sons, (published posthumously) 1904, "Edwin Johnson and His Writings", "xviii"-lii, by Edward A. Petherick, and, "Principal Writings of Edwin Johnson, M.A.", "561"-567.

'it recently occurred to me [Edwin Johnson] to glance again at Cardinal Newman's Grammar of Assent [see 1752-1753], which I was reading in the summer of 1871, and which I had scarcely opened since. On p. 289, Newman refers to the opinion of the paradoxical Father Hardouin, that most of our Latin classics were forgeries of the monks of the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries....

Cardinal [Newman], in discussing the opinion, pertinently observes,

"That all knowledge of the Latin classics comes to us from the Mediaeval copies of them, and they who transcribed them had the opportunity of forging or garbling them. WE ARE SIMPLY AT THEIR MERCY....The existing copies, whenever made, are to us the autographic originals....The numerous religious bodies then existing over the face of Europe had leisure enough, in the course of a century, to compose not only all the classics, but all the Fathers too." [see 1752 ("the monks had not the ability to write them.")]

PAGE 1838


I was led by these remarks to consult the works of Father Hardouin. To my surprise, I found that in his posthumous Ad Censuram Veterum Scriptorum Prolegomena (1766) [see Appendix III, 722-732] he had anticipated the substance of what I have had to say in these pages concerning the Basilian and Benedictine literature by some two hundred years. He denounces the ecclesiastical histories and the Fathers and Councils as a system of fable. He reveals to us the forgers sitting down in their scriptoria, with sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, or tenth century ink and parchments, and with corresponding alphabets, to write works in the names of imaginary authors. He designates the producers of the first Church literature a conspiracy, a wicked and impious crew of atheists, whose virus had infected the Missal even, and the Breviary. He was aware that he was attacking the Benedictines of the thirteenth century, and he pointedly says that he bears no ill-will to the Benedictines of his own day.

He [Hardouin] maintained, as he was bound to do, the genuineness of the canonical literature, but his great object was to emancipate the Church from dependence on book tradition, with the exception of the Vulgate, and to found her on "oral tradition." He thought that he might thus beat the weapons out of the hands of the Jansenists and the Protestants in general, who appealed to "Pseudo-Augustine" and other so-called Fathers....as a critic of the Church literature of vast experience, he [HARDOUIN] HAS NEVER BEEN REFUTED....

Many a new reader will thank me for calling attention to this fascinating work of the great Jesuit scholar [Hardouin]. It appears to have been written in 1725-26, when he was about eighty years of age, some three years before his death. Nothing can be more impressive than to see the aged priest firmly persisting in opinions which he had long ago been required to retract by his superiors, and supporting them by all the weight of experience derived from a long life spent among books. The Benedictine literary historians of 1754 have treated his [Hardouin] memory with respect, and have described a most entertaining scene which passed between him and one of their Order in Paris in the year 1711. In the Bibliothèque of Jesuit writers (1872), edited by A. De Backer, there is an inadequate account of these Prolegomena, which the writer can hardly have perused, and which he speaks of as "refuted." HARDOUIN'S ARGUMENTS IN REFERENCE TO THE LATE ORIGIN OF PATRISTIC LITERATURE CANNOT BE REFUTED; they will receive increasing confirmation from all critical students of the Middle Ages.' [14, 15, 16, 17].

"Chapter IV.

Moral and Religious Teaching Among

the Romans" [96].

'It is unnecessary to enter here into any disquisition on the relation of the Greek masters to their Roman disciples. The genius of the Romans made practical and popular the teaching of the Greek schoolmen. They instinctively selected what was helpful towards building up the Roman spirit and the Roman art of conduct. They had little relish for the

PAGE 1839


mere speculative or contemplative life, which carried men out of active fellowship with the body of their fellow-citizens. What is to be admired above all in the Romans is not so much their external works, their roads, their aqueducts, their public buildings, their legions, their system of civil right, as that character which is to be traced everywhere as the base and foundation of all their works. The charioteer of the Roman was the noblest of his traditions, and this tradition the Roman teachers laboured to cherish and hand down intact.

THE TEACHING OF THE ROMAN STOICS IS THE NOBLEST THAT HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN TO THE WORLD, AND THE BEST TEXT-BOOK OF THEIR WISDOM IS THE EPISTLES TO LUCILIUS ASCRIBED TO L. ANNAEUS SENECA of Cordova. We say "ascribed to Seneca," because, in the uncertainty that attends upon the authorship of much ancient literature [see Addition 34, 1632; 1736], it is well not to think so much of the name of the writer as of the intrinsic merit of his writings [this, of course, applies to the Old Testament, and, the New Testament; etc.]. One is tempted to say that if Seneca, the minister of Nero, was not a good man, then Seneca did not write these Epistles; and IF Seneca did write these Epistles, they are the monument of one of the loftiest and purest spirits that has ever risen up to guide and instruct mankind.' [96-97]. [See: Addition 34, 1615-1624 (Seneca) [after Addition 34 was on the Internet, I found the above--by Edwin Johnson]].

'Note.

I have referred in my Preface to the surprise with which I recently found that Father Hardouin [1646 - 1729] [see Appendix III, 717-732] had in 1690-1692, when he was of the mature age of forty-five, arrived at results almost identical with those set forth in these pages. In case his Prolegomena, London 1766 [posthumous. Suppressed], should not be readily accessible to the reader, I give a brief statement of his [Hardouin] opinions. The ecclesiastical history of the first twelve centuries is absolutely fabulous. The series of Popes is no more authentic then the series of Jewish high-priests. The theory of a succession of Fathers down to St. Bernard is analogous to the theory of the Rabbins of a succession of prophets to Ezra, and after him of a succession of wise men. The monks said, "The Fathers were until Bernard, the Scholastics to Thomas Aquinas, after him all were infants." Their frauds must have been begun long after the stated time of Bernard. The agreement, often verbatim, of the monastic chronicles, e.g., for the year 1215, show that they came from one workshop. Not one was written by a contemporary of the events described. THE OPPORTUNE TIME FOR THE FORGERS WAS FROM SOME EPOCH IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY ONWARDS, UNTIL PAST THE EPOCH OF PRINTING. They had among them astronomers, physicians, poets, savants in Hebrew and Arabic. The name of Planudes [Maximus Planudes 1260 - c. 1310], 1350 [sic], translator of Augustine on the Trinity into Greek, marks an epoch a little later than the production of that work in Latin. During about 1350-1480 were written the works which have been ascribed to the eleventh and following ages, especially the Decretals of the Popes. Charters, diplomats, false privileges, were concocted during the same period in the cloisters of Italy, France, and Germany. The books were written on parchment rather than paper, that they might appear older and last longer. The oldest MSS. [Manuscripts] contain both the works of the Fathers, still considered genuine, and those which have been reckoned false

PAGE 1840


from disparity of style and other reasons.

The forgers had the measure and form of letters for different centuries, and corresponding parchments and inks, by which they simulated a seventh, eighth, or ninth century style. Cf. e.g., Montfaucon [Bernard de Montfaucon 1655 - 1741], Palaeographia [see 1990], p. 326, where a fourteenth century scribe imitates the eleventh century character. Copies which have been supposed to date from the eighth century on the credit of the statement of the writers show the same form of writing, the same character, because the copyists had the same alphabet before their eyes. In the year 1712 was edited the Epitome of Lactantius from the MS. of the Turin Library. The editor gave a specimen of the letters; it is the same character as that of the Royal MS. of St. Paul's Epistles (see Montfaucon, Palaeographia, p. 217), and that of the St. Germain MS. of the same Epistles (p. 218), and the Paris MS. of the four Gospels. So similar is the character that you might swear that these MSS. were not only from one workshop, but from one hand, or if from many hands, certainly from those who had the same alphabet before their eyes, or same form of letters. Cf. Mabillon [Jean Mabillon 1632 - 1707], De Re Diplom., p. 233.

A MS. of St. Jerome in the Royal Library of Paris bears a Greek epigraph stating that it was written in the eleventh century. Experts would say that it dates from the fifteenth century. No Hebrew MSS. in our libraries are believed to be older than the fourteenth century. In Hebrew character the forgers could not, as in Latin, pretend a Merovingic, Lombardic, Saxon form.

There are no Biblical MSS. in the libraries not elegantly written and finished, because there are none incorrupt. Of the Vulgate there are no copies, because such were written only for use, and when worn out were cast away. There was no Royal Library in France til Charles V., the Wise, 1364-1380. So late as 1304, Simon, Bishop of Paris, had no books to bequeath to his Church except books for the use of the Church of Paris. In 1279 the legacy of Simon Tempier, Bishop of Paris, consisted of two Missals, one Gospel and Epistles, three Graduals, one Episcopal Ordinary, a Breviary in large letters, and two others, a Collectarium, and a Troperium or hymn-book. Mention is also made of a Bible in two-volumes, which he bought for £200. No Greek or Latin Father, no Peter Lombard even, is mentioned. Yet Peter Lombard is supposed to have lived a hundred years before, to have been Bishop of Paris, and to have been a great Patristic scholar!

In 1271 the Archdeacon of Canterbury bequeaths all his theological books to the Chancellor of Paris. There is not a Father nor a Scholastic among them.

In C. Hemeraeus' work on the Academy of Paris, a catalogue of books from the Armarium of St. Mary of Paris is given. It dates from the fourteenth century. There are thirty-eight volumes with Biblical matter. Two more volumes contain the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and the Questions of Peter of Poitiers. There is no Father, no ecclesiastical historian.

At the capture of Constantinople, 1453, there are said to have been only fifty MSS. in the Patriarchium, only 180 in the whole city. In the West, Montfaucon numbers 20,000. The Greek MSS. were first written in the West [see 1755].

PAGE 1841


F. Hardouin says of the Acts of Martyrs, that it was necessary they should be written equally with the Ecclesiastical History and the Lives of Saints, so that it might appear that in every age of the Church the doctrine contained in the writings of the Fathers had been approved and handed down by holy men, and that numberless martyrs had poured forth their blood in defence of the same. With strange irony he adds that these FICTITIOUS STORIES of martyrs had given rise to true martyrs in his own time, in Japan, Brazil, and elsewhere. So the Almighty had brought good even out of lies. The good Jesuits, reading those stories, had been inspired to devote their lives and labours, and to undergo cruel tortures like unto their God. They say that J. Gerson wrote that it was right to invent Lives of Saints, with the view of fostering piety.

The age which saw the rise of the Romance in Western literature, witnessed also the compilation of the Ecclesiastical Histories and Lives of the Saints. The Church was deceived when she believed the writings of the Fathers to be genuine without examination, and when she [Church] suffered lies to be inserted in the Breviary and the public prayers, with stories of Honorius, George, Catherine, and others.

F. HARDOUIN DATES THE FIRST DESIGN OF THE FORGERS IN FRANCE FROM PHILIP AUGUSTUS, 1180-1229. MUCH MORE WAS DONE UNDER PHILIP THE FAIR, 1285-1314, AND UNDER PHILIP OF VALOIS, 1328-1350; AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF LITERATURE WENT ON TO AN IMMENSE EXTENT DURING THE NEXT 150 YEARS.

The evidence, however, does not seem clear as to the priority, as he maintains, of the Latin Church, the Latin Bible and Service Books, over the Greek. The books, while the Greeks and Latins remained in union, appear to have been written in both tongues.' [390-393].

PAGE 1842


"Chapter XI.

The Interpolations [Forgeries] in the Literature of the Roman Empire

The literature of the old Roman Empire has come down to us from the cloisters mutilated, interpolated, and glossed by the hands of the Benedictines. The men who were responsible for the composition of the works ascribed to Josephus have inserted a mass of absurdities relating to Jews, Samaritans, Egyptians, Christians, &c., into the pages of the Romans....

I do not pretend to offer an exhaustive list of the interpolations, but merely to cite some of the most striking, with a view to show that

WE HAVE NOT IN OUR HANDS A PURE EDITION OF THE GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS OF THE [ROMAN] EMPIRE." [434].

'....the monks have far outdone their Rabbinical preceptors. Their object was to represent the Jews as extremely ancient and powerful, because they themselves, the Christiani [see 1875], were to be represented as a sect of them. And at the same time the object was to represent the Jews as the object of the greatest hatred and spite to the Roman people, so that they might justify their system of persecution against the unhappy people...." [435].

"Cicero, in a speech delivered a few years after the pretended triumph of Pompey over the unfortunate Jews, is made to allude, as if with bated breath, to their great numbers and influence in Rome...." [436].

'Virgil [70 - 19 B.C.E.], in his Georgics, is made to sing of bearing Idumaean palms to Mantua.2 There is no reason to suppose he had ever heard of Idumaea or Judaea. The epithet, moreover, is otiose where it stands. But more important is the fourth Eclogue [of Virgil] in the present relation. Here the forged Sibylline verses, spoken by the Basilian [monk] who writes under the name of Justin Martyr [c. 100 - c. 165 C.E. (?)], occur at once to memory. They have been also cited in a forged Concio ad Clerum, in the name of Constantine [Emperor 306 [312] - 337 (280? - 337)], and the monks pretend that Cicero [106 - 43 B.C.E.] had rendered them into Latin. The Emperor is made to sanction the Messianic interpretation of Virgil, and the monk who writes a Commentary on Romans, in the name of Augustine [354 - 430], puts his finger decisively on the line--Ultima Cumaei jam venit carminis aetas.

But the Cumaean Sibyl herself seems to be the invention of the monks. It is "Lactantius" who talks of her. We need but remind the reader of the forged acrostic oracle in the De Civitate Dei. [The City of God] on the words...[5 Greek words], which pseudo-Augustine pretends that the Proconsul Placidianus had shown him.1 ["1C.D. xviii. c. 23."]' [436-437].

PAGE 1843


'Most of our MSS. [written in Latin] of Horace come from the Benedictine monasteries of France [see 1755], where his writings were copied industriously from the thirteenth or fourteenth century. His text has been interpolated with clumsy places relating to "the Jews." He is made, like Cicero, to allude to their great numbers in Rome, and overwhelming influence,3 and their credulity.4 ....' [437].

[footnotes] "

3Sat. i. 4, 143.

4v. 100." [437].


"....There is more of this kind of writing, much in the same windy style that characterises the mock Josephus...." [439].

"....In short, we are in the hands of the men who compiled Josephus and other mediaeval fictions." [440].

'....The source of these tales will be found in the writings of the forgers of a late century: in "Josephus against Appion," in the Benedictine "Orosius" i. 8; in "Rufinus," "Julius Firmicus," &c. They pretend that Joseph was worshipped as Serapis, or Osiris, or Arsaph. So also "Clement of Alexandria," and "Augustine." ....' [442].

"The story that the Jews were driven out of Egypt as lepers is in Justin, xxxvi. 2, repeated in Orosius, and in the forged passage, Tacitus v. 3. On Mount Sina compare the Benedictine Sulp. Severus, Dial. i. II, Gal. iv. 25.

With the foolish story in Justin that the Sabbath was consecrated for ever as a fast, in memory of the end of hunger and wandering, may be compared the passages in Dion Cassius, chap. 37, that in pseudo-Augustine, C.D. vi. II, where the humane Seneca is made to bitterly attack the Jews as sceleratissima gens, and to pretend that the Sabbath has become an universal custom. Compare the canonical Gospel, Luke xviii. 12." [443].

'Most of the MSS. of Juvenal [c.55 - c. 140] have been greatly corrupted. The passages in him relating to Jews in Rome in the first century have attracted attention by their strangeness. We must decide against them on the same ground. It is hardly necessary to discuss them in detail; that in the fourteenth Satire most clearly betrays the hand of one of the same class of forgers who have tried to emend Strabo. Juvenal is made to enumerate, among the bad examples set by parents, the superstitious feeling about the Sabbath. The son of such a father adores nothing but the clouds and the spirit of the sky. He thinks swine's flesh to be the same as human flesh, and presently practises circumcision. Accustomed to contemn the Roman laws, they learn and keep and fear the Judaic jus: whatever Moses handed down in a secret volume, which teaches you not to show the way except to a fellow-worshipper, and to lead verpi alone (an obscene term) to the sought fountain.1

The Latin is bad, the animus shown still worse. The scholiast ["commentator, annotator"] betrays the origin of the interpolation by talking of baptism; and the mention of the "Secret Roll" reminds us of the legends of the Jewish Cabbala.

PAGE 1844


In the sixth Satire a clumsy "aside" is thrust in, alluding to a land where kings "observe festal Sabbaths with bare feet, and ancient clemency indulges old pigs."2 Just so Tacitus is made to say that pigs grow old among the Jews. Josephus and Hegesippus also described Berenice coming with bare feet to Jerusalem.

The bad Latin in the line--

"Arcanam Judaea tremens mendicat in aurem,"3

again attracts attention. Juvenal could not have written it. But the picture of the stealth of Jewish prophesying, and their readiness to sell you any sort of dreams for a small bit of money, is only too characteristic of that period of the Middle Age when such things were done. In this and in some other places the attempt is made to thrust in the Jewish religion in connection with that of Isis and Osiris.4' [444-445].

[footnotes] "

1Sat. xiv. 96, seq.; cf. the learned notes in Mr. Mayor's edition.

2vi. 155, seq.

3vi. 542.

It is more like a description of the Gipsies." [445].

'The interest of the Western monks in Seneca [c. 4 B.C.E. - 65 C.E.] consists in their desire to make him out a friend of their St. Paul. They have forged a series of foolish letters with this object in view; and they have moreover inserted a passage ironically allusive to the Jews in the Epistles to Lucilius:--

"I have taught how the gods are to be worshipped. Let us forbid any one to kindle a lamp on the Sabbaths; since neither do the gods need light, nor do even men delight in smoke. Let us forbid the offering of morning salutation, and sitting at the doors of temples. Human ambition is taken by such offices as these. He worships God who knows him."2

There is also an allusion to certain rites of foreign nations, and arguments of superstition in favour of abstinence from certain animals, which are probably from the same hand.3

The source of the forgery may be seen in the false Augustine, C.D., vi. II.' [446].

'The Epigrams of Martial [c. 40 - c. 104] have been interpolated with several spiteful and obscene passages relating to the Jews; and he also is made to use the word Idumaean as equivalent to Jewish. Titus with his father merited an Idumaean triumph,4 and we hear once more of the Idumaean palms.5 We hear of the "fasts of the Sabbatarians" as causing bad breath; and in a picture of the streets of Rome, the Jews who has been taught by his mother to beg (rogare) is introduced.7 We hear of "circumcised Jews,"8 and of a pretended Jewish slave who has come from "burnt Solyma," and is subject to tribute.1 [see footnote, 1846]' [446-447].

[footnotes] "

2Ep. i. 95.
3Ep. i. 108; cf. Tacit. A. ii. 83; Suet. Tib. xxxvi.

PAGE 1845


4ii. 2.
5x. 50.
6iv. 4.
7xii. 57.
8vii. 29." [446].

[footnote] "1vii. 54; cf. xi. 95." [447].

'Another hint of the manner in which the Latin monks fabricated evidence in favour of their theory about the Jews is furnished by the Latin monk who writes under the name "Minucius Felix [d. c. 250]," and who pretends to cite one Antonius Julianus, of the reign of Vespasian, as having said that "the Jews deserved their ill fate by their own iniquity."3 With him is made to join Josephus, or the Basilian monk who writes under his name, and who calls this Julian Procurator [see "Prefect", 1991] of Judaea.4 Bernays has justly conjectured5 that Tacitus' story in the Histories was derived from this source--in other words, wholly from a monkish source.' [447].

[footnotes] "

3Oct. xxxiii.

4B.J. 6, 4, 3.

5Sulp. Severus, p. 56." [447].


"Another of Poggio's discoveries was the MS. of Statius...." [448].

"We come now to the strange story which Tacitus is supposed to tell about the Jews in the fifth book of his Histories, which should have contained the account of what happened in the Roman Empire during the years 69 and 70.

After all that has been said about the Benedictines and their literary activity, we may now certainly affirm that this strange piece of mythology was their production. The principal MS. is the Mediceus II., incorrectly supposed to have been written between 1053-1087. And it is the monks who write under the notorious names of Tertullian3 and of Jerome4 who direct our attention to the work. The passage instructs us, in connection with other evidence, how entirely fantastic were the notions about the Jews at the time of their settlement as a schola [Latin: school] in Rome...." [449].

[footnotes] "

3Apol. xvi.

4On Zach. lib. iii. c. 14. 2 F" [449].


"THE MONKS HATE THE ORTHODOX JEWS, AND AT THE SAME TIME DESIRE TO REPRESENT THE JEWS AS THEIR ANCESTORS." [450].

PAGE 1846


"When we name Sulpicius Severus, the monk of Aquitaine, we name a monk of the same Benedictine confederacy, who wrote about the same time with his brother monk of Monte Cassino [87 miles southeast of Rome], and who is a fellow-forger of tales about the Jews in his Historia Sacra.

The same MS. contains the Annals, xi.-xvi., in which occurs the notorious passage concerning Christus [see 1857, 1864] and the Christiani [see 1875]. Here the writer is thinking in Catholic phrases. He renders confessors by qui fatebantur, and talks obscurely of flagitia in connection with the Christian name.

In the Annals, ii. 85, we have the absurd passage corresponding to one in Suetonius, Tib. 36, in which several thousand Jews are said to have been enrolled as soldiers and sent to Sardinia." [450].

"The supposed correspondence of Pliny with the Emperor Trajan is not to be found in any extant MS. It was added to the collection by Aldus.

The fraud should have long ago been discovered. One cannot read the first two sentences without feeling that this is the writing of a man unaccustomed to think in classical Latin. He probably thought in French.

What can grate more harshly on the ear than such phrases as cunctationem meam regere and ignorantiam instruere? Other expressions reveal the hand of the forger in Tacitus. We have the talk about flagitia, faterentur used in an obscure sense, sacramento in the Catholic sense, and the like. PLINY was neither a Catholic, nor was he the man to employ expressions which he did not understand. SO LONG USED AS AN EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, THE LETTER [BOOK X:96 (see 1858)] IS IN FACT ONE OF THE MOST GLARING AND IMPUDENT FABRICATIONS IN THE LONG SERIES." [450-451]. [See: 1701-1702 (Strange)].

"....Not only have the monks put these startling observations into the mouth of Epictetus [c. 55 - c. 135], but they have been indebted to him [Epictetus] in more than one place in the compilation of the New Testament [see 1496] ...." [453].

"It appears that the Latin monks were interested in the tales of magic and miracle to be found in Apuleius, and they have inserted some things into his text which have led unwary readers to suppose that he was acquainted with Judaism and Christianity. The references to him [Apuleius] are frequent in works ascribed to Augustine.2 [see footnote, 1848]" [454].

"Among the jurists of the second century, Papinian and others, there was actually a Roman lawyer of the name of Tertullian, who wrote eight books of Questions. Nothing better illustrates the effrontery of the monks that the fact that in the first Ecclesiastical History3 [see footnote, 1848] they have borrowed the name of this lawyer as a mask for one of their own apologetic writers [validity?]. It is indeed probable enough that some of the numerous Tertullianic tracts1 ["1See Apol. 1-6, 28-44; De An. 6."] produced in the Western monasteries were the work of a man of legal training, as well as of shrewd, though dishonest wit." [454-455].

PAGE 1847


[footnotes] "

2C.D. viii. 12, 14, 19; Epp. 136, 138; Lactant, D.I. v. 3, vii. 18. Cf. the foolish invective in Apul. Met. xi. 14. The subject has been further treated by Hildebrand, 1842, i. p. xlix.

3Eus. H.E. ii. 2." [454].


"The tractate on Isis and Osiris ascribed to Plutarch is, we think, also of doubtful genuineness." [455].

"Upon Lucian the Basilians make a violent attack, pretending that he blasphemed the name of Christ. GESNER AND NIEBUHR, however, EXPOSED THE FORGERY OF THE PHILOPATRIS [see #24, 496; 1866]; AND EQUALLY THE PEREGINUS [see 1873-1874], in which the monks level their satire both against Christians and against Cynics, must be rejected. In another spurious piece a satirical allusion to the Jews occurs.2 THE ALEXANDROS OR FALSE PROPHET [see 1871-1872] HAS BEEN WRITTEN OR INTERPOLATED IN THE SAME INTEREST.

It will be noticed that in the Peregrinus the same system is pursued by the monks of representing the Christiani [see 1875] as a poor and despicable sect, related in some way to the Jews. They cast out Peregrinus for eating of some forbidden food." [456].

[footnote] "2Tragodo-podagra, 173." [456].

"NOT CONTENT WITH REPRESENTING [MARCUS] AURELIUS AS A PERSECUTOR OF THE CHRISTIANS, THE MONKS HAVE BORROWED FROM HIM, AS FROM EPICTETUS, IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.1" [457]. [See: Addition 34, 1496-1644].

[footnote] "1See Gataker, Index Locorum S. Scripturae." [457].

"....An epistle from Hadrian [see 1889] is produced, in which he writes of Christiani [see 1875], Jews, and Samaritans as worshipping Serapis [see #24, 504, 522-524].

The reader will find the origin of these strange tales in the Josephus of the monks, and again in their Eusebius, their Socrates, and their Sozomen. Though they are of quite another kind than the tales of the emperors in the Gesta Romanorum, they are equally devoid of all historical foundation, and were doubtless conficted [now, confected: "made up"] near to the same epoch.

Other forgeries in the Historia Augusta [see #24, 522; etc.] were exposed by Father Hardouin, in his examination of the coins of the period." [461].

'one of the most unpardonable offences of the Basilians and the Benedictines is that they have conspired to deface and to caricature the bright image of Julian, one of the purest and noblest of spirits, according to the testimony of his comrades and intimates, that ever adorned the purple. He died fighting for our Western culture, and

PAGE 1848


has been rewarded by the title of apostate from a semi-Oriental religion of which he never heard [?]. Monte Cassino monks are again the offenders here.1....

It is certain [?] that none of the works ascribed to Julian [Emperor 361 - 363 (331 - 363)] are genuine: it is the monks who insist upon making him reflect their theories about the religious condition of the empire in the fourteenth century. Especially noteworthy is the frequent insertion of the name Galilaei [see 1876] in the Epistles; it is one of the names which the monks have fixed upon as those of imaginary Jewish ancestors of the Christiani [see 1875]. The whole series of fables relating to the Emperor's desire to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, and so forth, will be seen, in the light of our investigations, to be a historic absurdity.

One of the most valuable of our too scanty documents from the Roman Empire is the Res Gestae of Ammian [Ammianus Marcellinus c. 330 - 395], the officer and friend of Julian. The first part of the work has been destroyed, the remainder has been fearfully garbled. The principal MS. was brought from the Benedictine cloister at Fulda by Poggio.

Here again the theological geography and history has been inserted into the text. Pompey is said to have formed the "regions of Palestine" into a province, after the conquest of the Jews and the capture of Jerusalem.1 The series of lies about Julian, the source of which will be found in the Basilian who writes under the name of Gregory Nazianzenus [Nazianzus]--is also duly inserted. Then we have the usual explosion of spite against "stinking and riotous Jews," in an anecdote about Vespasian. Nor are the Christiani spared. In a ridiculous scene their bishops come with a ragged mob into the palace, and the imperial preacher gives them civil admonition. He had found that the Christiani were fiercer than wild beasts towards one another.' [462-463].

[footnote] "1On Jerusalem and the Jews see Eutrop. vi. 14, vii. 19, seq.--the story of the Josephi again." [462].

'With regard to the term Galilaei [see 1876], so constantly occurring in the pretended work of Julian [Emperor 361 - 363 (331 - 363)], it is traceable solely to the canonical and other sources of the Basilians and the Benedictines. The like observation applies to the Nazoraei or Nazaraei, which the monks who write under the names of Epiphanius and of Tertullian declare was one of the early names of the Christiani [see 1875]. It is probably taken from the Arabic and Jewish Nozara, Nozarim, as a general term for heretics. How entirely ignorant the monks must have been of the geography of Syria at the time they began this activity may be seen from the work, Cyril against Julian, where Galilaei are thought of as a people "in Judaea," and then as all the Gentiles! The idea of them as Christians has been derived from the passage in Isaiah.

The rise of the denomination Galilaei [see 1876], for the ancestors of the Christiani [see 1875], may be dated from about the time of William of Tyre [c. 1130 - 1185],1 after the foundation of the principality of Antioch by the Normans.' [464-465].

[footnote] " 1vii. i." [465].

PAGE 1849


"I hope I may excuse myself from discharging any more of MONKISH FALSEHOOD and nonsense into these pages. The above specimens will have shown their animus and their method. It was well calculated to deceive, and it has deceived that large class of persons who find the lies of an individual detestable, but who respect and believe the lies of a confederacy. By means of tales which encourage popular odium of the Jews, and which magnify alike the virtues and the vices of Christiani [Christians (see 1875)] or Monachi [ecclesiastical Latin: monks (A Latin Dict., 1962)], with their mysterious and polyonymous ["known by various names"] ancestry, the authors have certainly flattered many persons of their time and obtained a strong hold of the credulity of the world.

At what time were these interpolations made? When we consider the great poverty of books in the monasteries and the schools, and the smallness of the reading class at any time before the great revival of learning, it seems almost certain that much of the work was not attempted until just before that revival, when the monks must have felt that their day of judgment was at hand. Some have suspected Poggio [see 1989] himself of a part in the nefarious work. At all events, MANY OF THESE FORGERIES HAVE BEEN EXECUTED WITH SUFFICIENT CLEVERNESS BY THE MERCENARY SERVANTS OF THE POPE TO DECEIVE GENERATIONS OF SCHOLARS, OTHERWISE ACUTE, WHO HAVE APPROACHED THE LITERATURE

UNDER THE STUPOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL PREPOSSESSION.

The renewed study of the subject will convince the educated world how young and recent are many of those ideas in respect of the origin of Christendom which have prevailed among us since the invention of printing [long history. Probable intention, c. 1440] and the diffusion of books." [End of Chapter XI.] [468-469].

PAGE 1850


from: Josephus and Modern Scholarship, (1937-1980), Louis H. Feldman, Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York, 1984.

"....The title...[Greek word] which Josephus (War 2. 169) gives to Pilate definitely is the equivalent of procurator.

A new inscription on a two-by-three-foot stone discovered in 1961 in Caesarea establishes that Pilate's official title was prafectus rather than procurator (the title given him by Tacitus, Annals 15.44.3), thus confirming the view of MOMMSEN (1400) that Pilate was not a procurator but a prefect [see 1991]. FROVA (1401) (1402), who presents a magnificent editio princeps of this inscription, notes that the stone has ECTUS, which can be restored only as praefectus. He concludes that a governor of Judaea was called praefectus during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, that Claudius changed the title to procurator, and that Tacitus and Josephus (whose...[Greek word] in War 2. 169 for Pilate definitely equals procurator) are guilty of an ANACHRONISM[see 1888][?]. The New Testament, he notes, very accurately refrains from calling Pilate procurator but instead terms him governor (...[Greek word]), whereas Josephus is LOOSER [?] in his terminology...." [318].

'YELNITSKY (1409), as a result of this inscription, PRESENTS THE HYPOTHESIS THAT TACITUS' ANNALS 15.44.3, WHERE PILATE IS TERMED PROCURATOR, IS A CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION. But we may ask what a Christian would gain by calling Pilate procurator rather than prefect; on the contrary, we may suggest, if a Christian were to change the text of Tacitus, we would expect him to bring it into line with the New Testament, which terms Pilate...[Greek word], "governor", rather than procurator, MICHELFEIT (1410), p. 518, and KOESTERMANN (1411), p. 463, refute YELNITSKY (1409) and convincingly argue for the authenticity of Tacitus' text.' [319].

"WEBER (1415), commenting on the discrepancy between the inscription and Tacitus, says that Josephus' description of Pilate as a procurator is NOT NECESSARILY A LATE CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION but reflects his [Josephus] INEXACTITUDE [?] when it comes to the technical terms about ruling." [320].

PAGE 1851


from: Tacitus, in Five Volumes, III, The Histories Books IV-V, with an English translation by Clifford H. Moore of Harvard University, The Annals Books I-III, with an English translation by John Jackson, Harvard University Press, William Heinemann, Ltd. MCMLXXIXX [sic (delete last X) (1979)] (1931).

"The exact date of his [Tacitus c. 55 - c. 120 C.E.] birth is equally unknown, but he [Tacitus] was senior by a few years to his intimate friend and correspondent, the younger Pliny [62 - 113]; who states in a letter to him that he was in his eighteenth year at the time of the great eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed Pompeii, Herculaneum, and his uncle [Pliny the Elder 23 - 79 C.E.] in the late summer of 79 A.D." [228]. [Suetonius c. 69 - after 122 (friend of Pliny) (knew Tacitus?)].

"The text of the first six books of the Annals depends entirely on the Mediceus primus (saec. [saeculum: century] IX); for the remainder, the authority is the Mediceus secundus (saec. XI); both are now in the Laurentian Library. For the details of their discovery the reader may be referred to Voigt (Wiederbelebung u.s.w. I. p. 249 sqq.). THE TEXT OF THIS EDITION IS ECLECTIC. In the first book the variations from the manuscript are recorded with some fulness [commonly, fullness]; afterwards, in order to economize space, obvious and undisputed corrections, especially of the older scholars, are seldom noticed." [238-239] [End of Introduction].

"Preface [to Vol. IV, The Annals, Books IV-VI, XI-XII]"

"A word, also, should perhaps be said about the few critical notes accompanying the text. As space hardly permitted, and the objects of the edition hardly required, the mention of every divergence from the written tradition, IT WAS DECIDED TO OMIT THE LONG LIST OF THOSE ADMIRABLE CORRECTIONS WHICH, IN THE COURSE OF THE SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES, CONVERTED THE ANNALS INTO A LEGIBLE BOOK AND HAVE EVER AFTERWARDS REMAINED PART AND PARCEL OF THE TEXT. On the other hand, later corrections, even in minutiae, have almost always been noticed; and if the slightest doubt seemed to me to be attached to any emendation of any date, its author and the manuscript reading have been appended." [vii].

"Book XV [Vol. V, The Annals, Books XIII-XVI]"

[The classic, in the "Annals of Tacitus", XV:XLIV (15:44)]

["Tacitus"] "XLIV. So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence: now means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was made to the Sibylline books; at the injunction of which public prayers were offered to Vulcan, Ceres, and Proserpine, while Juno was propitiated by the matrons, first in the Capitol, then at the nearest point of the sea-shore, where water was drawn for sprinkling the temple and image of the goddess. Ritual banquets and all-night vigils were celebrated by women in the married state. But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of

PAGE 1852


cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,1 whom the crowd styled Christians.2 Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator [see "prefect", 1991] Pontius Pilate,3 and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers1 were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.2 And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night [see 1815]. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man." [another, Christian Romance!] [End of Book XV] [283, 285]. [See: 1864].

[footnotes] '

  1. The charges bandied about in the next century were those always favoured in such cases: ritual murder, nameless abominations with extinguished lights, et hoc genus omne (Just. Mart. Apol. 1. 26, etc.).
  2. About twenty years had elapsed since the name [Christian] arose in Antioch (Acts xi. 26).--For a clear statement of the main problems of this "Neronian persecution," the reader may be referred to Furneaux' Excursus (II2. 416-427 [see 1854]).
  3. The only mention [of Pontius Pilate] in heathen Latin [see 1991].' [282, 283].
  4. [footnote, to the Latin (not referenced above)] "
  5. So the Mediceus, corruptly and, it would seem, defectively; nor is it possible to restore the original with the help of the version of Sulpicius Severus (about 400 A.D.):--interirent, multi crucibus adfixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati ut, cum defecisse c.q.s. (Chron. ii. 29). Nipperdey cut the knot by cancelling aut crucibus...flammandi." [284]. [See: 1688, 1813].

[footnotes] '

  1. The expression, of course, may mean anything. Gibbon [Edward Gibbon 1737 - 1794] compared the terms applied by Livy to the 7,000 people involved in the Bacchanalian scandals--multitudinem ingentem, alterum iam populun (XXXIX.13), multa milia hominum (ib.15).
  2. Jewish "misanthropy"--which was proverbial--may have partly suggested the charge; though from a passage of Sulpicius Severus [see 1991], almost certainly transcribed from the Histories (see vol. ii. p. 220 of this edition), it is evident that the gulf between Jew and Christian had been clearly recognized by the Roman high command in 70 A.D.' [284, 285].

PAGE 1853


from: The Annals of Tacitus, edited with Introduction and Notes by Henry Furneaux, Vol. II. Books XI-XVI, Second Edition, Revised by H.F. Pelham and C.D. Fisher, Oxford, 1907 (printed from sheets of 1951, 1961, 1965) (antecedents to 1883).

"Appendix II

ON THE NERONIAN PERSECUTION OF THE CHRISTIANS ["416"-427].

Note.--The authorities consulted are generally specified in their places; but a further general obligation has here to be acknowledged to Dr. C.F. Arnold, 'die Neronische Christenverfolgung,' Leipzig, 1888." ["416"].

"It must seem strange that

ANY ONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE INTERPOLATED PASSAGE IN JOSEPHUS [unexpected admission by this author],4 OR THE CORRESPONDENCE OF ST. PAUL AND SENECA [uncontested classic ("clumsy") forgery],5

should suppose that it ["Neronian persecution of the Christians"] is only a similar, but somewhat more skilful performance of the same kind that lies here before us." [417].

[footnote (not referenced above)] "1St. Augustine thinks it necessary to explain the silence of Seneca (1.1.) by suggesting that he could neither safely praise nor perhaps conscientiously find fault with Christianity. The absence of satirical allusion in still later writers, as Martial and Juvenal, may be explained [Christian apologetics ("Spin"!)] with Bp. Lightfoot (Philippians, Introd. i.) by the small material furnished by Christians to caricature." [419].

"The earliest express reference to any Neronian persecution in a Christian writer is that in the fragment preserved by Eusebius1 of the Apology addressed to M. Aurelius [Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius] by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, about A.D. 170, which, without showing any knowledge of the circumstances as described by Tacitus, sets forth the two most wicked emperors, Nero and Domitian, as having become, at the suggestion of evil counsellors, the only persecutors of the Christians.2 The same note is dwelt upon at greater length by TERTULLIAN [see 1861], who, though he refers his adversaries to the statements of their own writers, and has elsewhere3 distinctly cited Tacitus, SHOWS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PASSAGE OF THE ANNALS.4 By others, as Lactantius,5 Eusebius,6 and Jerome,7 Nero is spoken of in general terms as a persecutor, with no allusion to these many and nameless victims, but as having caused the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul; and it is in Sulpicius Severus alone that any unmistakable following of the narrative of Tacitus is shown [this ("it is...shown.") is refuted. see 1813].8 [see footnote, below]" [422].

[footnote] "8The only earlier Christian writing that even so far follows Tacitus as to connect the persecution with the fire is the apocryphal correspondence of Paul and Seneca, which must have been written at some date before the time of Jerome [c. 342 - 420], who refers to it as if genuine. See below, p. 425, 3." [422].

PAGE 1854


from: Tacitus Reviewed, A.J. Woodman, Oxford, 1998.

Comment: glancing (Index, etc.), I was amused to find no reference to Annals 15:44, or, Christians [for gory Fictional story (Annals 15:44), see 1852-1853].

"....Traditional views die hard, and, despite the range and eminence of the scholars who have studied Tacitus during the twentieth century, the standard interpretations of his [Tacitus] text have been too little questioned. Readers, as a general rule, have read what they expected to read; familiarity has bred complacency; the Annals has become, ironically, a comfortable narrative.

In this book I have tried to raise questions about the nature and meaning of that narrative, often proposing radically different readings of famous passages on which there exists a scholarly consensus...." [243].

"Index of Passages" [Annals]

(15.13.2,15.2-4, 24. 1) 183

(15.34.1) 158, 221-2

(15.36-7) 168-69

[note: Annals 15:44 not listed]

(15.48-74) 190-217

(15.48.1) 181, 215

(15.50.1) 201

[quotation marks omitted] [251].

from: Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus, Ellen O'Gorman, University of Bristol, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Comment: glancing (Index, etc.), I was amused to find no reference to Annals 15:44, or, Christians [for gory Fictional story (Annals 15:44), see 1852-1853].

"Index Locorum" [Annals]

15.39.3 172-3

15.41.1 173 n. 63

15.43.1 174

15.43.5 174-5

[note: Annals 15:44 not listed]

15.49.2 155

15.49.3 156-7

15.60.2 171 n. 60

[quotation marks omitted] [199].

PAGE 1855


from: The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, by Arthur Drews [1865 - 1935], Tr. Joseph McCabe, Watts, 1912. Arno reprint, 1972. [See: 1783-1788].

'The Roman Witnesses

--Pliny [62 - 113] and Suetonius [c. 69 - after 122].

We now come to the Roman witnesses to the historicity of Jesus.

Of the younger Pliny [friend of Suetonius and Tacitus [c. 55 - 120]] it is hardly necessary to speak further in this connection. He was dragged into the discussion of the "Christ-myth" at a late stage, merely to enlarge the list of witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. No one seriously believes that any such evidence is found in Pliny.1 [see footnote, 1857] In his correspondence with the Emperor Trajan, which is believed to have taken place about the year 113, and which is occupied with the question how Pliny, as Proconsul of the province of Bithynia in Asia Minor, was to behave in regard to the Christians, he informs the Emperor that the adherents of the sect sing hymns to Christ at daybreak "as if he were a god (quasi deo)." What this proves as regards the historical reality of the man Christ we should be pleased to have rationally explained.2 [see footnote, 1857] What has been said on the subject up to the present is merely frivolous, adapted only to an utterly thoughtless circle of readers or hearers. Yet even a man like Jülicher does not hesitate to quote Pliny among the profane witnesses. He also mentions Marcus Aurelius [Emperor 161 - 180 (121 - 180)], who expresses his anger against the Christians in his Meditations [XI:3 ("here only mentioned and this probably a gloss [interpolation]" (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Haines, Loeb, 396))] (about the year 175!), and assures us that what is meant there by Christianity is the community of those who believed in the Jesus of our and their gospels as their God and Saviour (p. 17). We are grateful for this "information," but we should have expected that a scholar like Jülicher would have something more serious to tell us on the subject.

There seems to be more significance in the words of the Roman historian Suetonius [friend of Pliny (knew Tacitus?)] (77-140 A.D.), who tells us in his Life of Claudius (c. 25) that that emperor "expelled from Rome the Jews because, at the instigation of Chrestus, they were perpetually making trouble" (Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit). If we only knew precisely who is meant by this Chrestus! The name in the text is not "Christus," but "Chrestus" [see 1864] (and in some manuscripts Cherestus), which is by no means the usual designation of Jesus, while it is a common name, especially among Roman freedmen. Hence the whole passage in Suetonius may have nothing whatever to do with the question of Christianity. It may just as well refer to any disturbances whatever caused among the Jews by a man named Chrestus, and it does not say much for the "scientific" spirit of theologians when they interpret it in their own sense without further ado. [note: for age comparisons: Lucian c. 117 - c. 180]

An attempt has been made to connect the passage in Suetonius with the messianic expectation of the Jews, and to interpret it in the sense of referring either to quarrels in the Jewish community at Rome owing to the belief of those who held that Jesus was the Messiah they all expected, or to a general agitation of Roman Judaism on account of its

PAGE 1856


messianic ideas and hostility to the pagan world. The first alternative, however, is not very helpful in view of the fact that, when Paul came to Rome about ten years afterwards to preach the gospel, the Jews there seem to have known nothing whatever about Jesus; and, according to the account in Acts, his arrival led to no disturbance among them.1 The second alternative, on the other hand, contains no evidence for the historicity of Jesus, as, even if we substitute Christus for Chrestus, "Christus" is merely the Greek-Latin translation of "Messiah," and the phrase "at the instigation of Chrestus" would refer to the Messiah generally, and not at all necessarily to the particular Messiah Jesus as an historical personality.2

In any case, HOWEVER WE INTERPRET THE PASSAGE OF SUETONIUS, IT HAS NO BEARING WHATEVER ON THE QUESTION OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. Jülicher and Weinel admit this when they omit Suetonius in their enumerations of profane witnesses. J. Weiss also admits: "The passage in the time of Claudius 'impulsore Chresto' betrays so inaccurate a knowledge of the facts that it cannot seriously be regarded as a witness" (p. 88).

2--Tacitus. [see 1783-1788]

THE PASSAGE IN SUETONIUS LEAVES IT UNCERTAIN WHO CHRESTUS IS, AND CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE ADVANCED AS A PROOF OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. It is very different with the evidence of Tacitus. In the Annals (xv, 44) Christ is expressly mentioned as an historical personage [see 1852-1853 (Annals 15:44)]....' [19-21].

[footnotes] "1It is characteristic of the tactics of our opponents that certain Catholic writers have begun to appeal to Porphyry, the Neoplatonic philosopher, who lived 232-304 A.D. He wrote many words against Christianity, which we know only indirectly from the refutations of Methodius and Eusebius. No one can say precisely what they contained, as the Emperor Theodosius II. prudently ordered them to be burned in public in the year 435. What does that matter to the theologian as long as he can bring one more name into the field?

2Moreover, the genuineness of this correspondence of Pliny and Trajan is by no means certain. Justin does not mention it on an occasion when we should expect him to do so, and even Tertullian's supposed reference to it (Apol., cap. ii) is very doubtful. The tendency of the letters to put the Christians in as favourable a light as possible is too obvious not to excite some suspicion. For these and other reasons the correspondence was declared by experts to be spurious even at the time of its first publication, at the beginning of the sixteenth century; and recent authorities, such as Semler, Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l'Église, 1875, p. 215, etc.), Havet (Le Christianisme et ses Origines, 1884, iv, 8), and Hochart (Études au Sujet de la Persécution des Chrétiens sous Néron, 1885, pp. 79-143; compare also Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Cäsaren, 1877, p. 268, etc.; and the anonymously published work of Edwin Johnson [see 1900], Antiqua Mater, 1887), which have disputed its authenticity, either as a whole or in material points [see 1701-1702]." [18-19].

PAGE 1857


from: Pliny [62 - 113], Letters and Panegyricus, in Two Volumes, I, Letters, Books I-VII, with an English Translation by Betty Radice, William Heinemann Ltd, Harvard University Press, MCMLXIX.

"Introduction"

"For Book X there are considerable difficulties...." [xxvi].

_____ _____ _____

from: Pliny, Letters and Panegyricus, in Two Volumes, II, Letters, Books VIII-X, with an English translation by Betty Radice, William Heinemann Ltd, Harvard University Press, MCMLXIX.

"Book X."

"XCVI

Pliny [62 - 113] to the Emperor [98 - 117] Trajan2 [see footnote, below]

[Pliny] It is my custom to refer all my difficulties to you. Sir, for no one is better able to resolve my doubts and to inform my ignorance.

I have never been present at an examination3 of Christians [Latin in text: "Christianis"]. Consequently, I do not know the nature or the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed. Nor am I at all sure whether any distinction should be made between them on the grounds of age, or if young people and adults should be treated alike; whether a pardon ought to be granted to anyone retracting his beliefs, or if he has once professed Christianity [Is Latin in text?], he shall gain nothing by renouncing it; and whether it is the mere name of Christian [Latin in text: "Christianus"] which is punishable, even if innocent of crime, or rather the crimes associated with the name.1 ...."

[Note: I have not studied Latin. For greater accuracy, etc., review the above, and, page 1864, with Latin scholars]. [285, 287]. [See: 1864].

[footnote] "2For this celebrated exchange of letters, see Tertullian, Apology II. 6-10 [see 1861], and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III. 33 [see 1862]; for trials of Christians, see Eusebius, IV.15, V.1, etc. Note that P. [Pliny] first executes Christians for their contumacia, then has doubts and seeks advice; but the charge is never that of maiestas." [284-285].

PAGE 1858


from: Tertullian [c. 160 - c. 220], Apology, De Spectaculis, with an English translation by T.R. Glover, Fellow of St. John's College and Public Orator in the University of Cambridge. Minucius Felix [d. c. 250], with an English translation by Gerald H. Rendall, based on the unfinished version by W.C.A. Kerr, Harvard; Heinemann, MCMLXXVII.

"It has often been discussed whether Minucius Felix borrowed from Tertullian, and practically rewrote the Apology, or whether the debt was on the other side. In general to-day it seems agreed that Minucius is the later of the two writers. The reader of this volume will decide for himself. While the authors are vastly different, their books are more alike than a modern reader would expect. It is partly that the ancients had different canons or standards from our own as to the propriety of borrowing from other authors. The same difficulty meets the reader of Apuleius's Golden Ass and the less golden Ass attributed to Lucian [see 1867], though now denied to him by some editors: which borrowed, or was there a common archetype? In the Christian Church the lines of apology were early laid down. The testimonia from the Old Testament to be used against the Jew began early to be collected; Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian [see 1830 (Cyprian)] and others use the same passages and in the same way; successive writers extend the collection, and do not improve it. Similarly the apologies addressed to the Emperor or the heathen world have much in common. The parallels are noted in the commentaries." [xx]. [See: Appendix III, 717-732 (Hardouin)].

"Introduction

The Apology

(Text, Editions, Translations, Etc.)

The Apology of Tertullian presents a phenomenon rare in Latin palaeography; there are two distinct manuscript traditions. In the New Testament there is in a rather less degree the same problem about the Acts; for the Codex Bezae (in the Cambridge University Library) has, with a small group of less important MSS., certain readings which it is hard to reject as interpolations, but which are not in ordinary MSS., nor in the great MSS. on which the text to-day is generally based. In the case of the Apology, the main tradition rests on a family of some thirty MSS. [(my (LS) comment) "Once upon a time"] In 1584 François de Maulde (latinized as Modius), who was moving about in Germany to be out of the troubles of France, came in September to Fulda, and stayed there three months. He betook himself to the Benedictine monastery and, among the MSS. which he found there and collated [?], he came on one of Tertullian's Apology. He had with him an edition published by René Laurent de la Barre (Barraeus) in Paris in 1580. With this he very carefully collated [?] his newly found MS., but he did not publish his work. He gave it to a friend, from whom, through another, it came into the hands of François du Jon (Junius), who was engaged on a new edition of Tertullian in Holland, and, as his work was too far advanced to allow incorporation, he printed the collations [?] as an appendix. The MS. was lost, perhaps for ever, in the disorders of the next century; scholars have to depend on the collation [?]...." [xxi]. [See: 1736 (Preface)].

PAGE 1859


"It will be very plain to anyone who tries to translate TERTULLIAN for himself that the author's language is not the Classical Latin of the schools, but that it goes far beyond Tacitus in COMPLEXITY and STRANGENESS--one almost writes, in UNNATURAL COMBINATIONS OF WORD AND SYNTAX [strange! This!, from "The Father of Latin Theology". Or, is this mess, the results of centuries of Christian writers (Forgers! "Spinners"! Etc.!)?]. A little inquiry will reveal that other translators and commentators have felt the same difficulty, and it will hardly be guessing to say that the transcribers of the MSS. were from time to time as much perplexed.

[following, some (tangential) apologetics] Whenever a MS. is copied, or even set up for press, certain things are apt to go wrong; a word is misspelt and has to be corrected without the archetype; a word or a line is dropped, and so on; the cases are familiar. But here is an author [Tertullian] who writes like nobody else. Every copyist, commentator, translator and reader will unconsciously assume the usual things and make the usual sort of correction, with disastrous results." [xxii-xxiii].

PAGE 1860


_____ _____ _____

from: Tertullian, Apology, De Spectaculis, with an English translation by T.R. Glover, Fellow of St. John's College and Public Orator in the University of Cambridge. Minucius Felix, with an English translation by Gerald H. Rendall, based on the unfinished version by W.C.A. Kerr, Harvard; Heinemann, MCMLX (1931).

"Apologeticus, II. [6-10]" [see 1864]

[Tertullian] "....And yet we find it is forbidden even to hunt us [Christians] down. For when Plinius Secundus was governing his province and had condemned some Christians and driven others from their steadfastness, and still the sheer numbers concerned worried him as to what he ought to do thereafter, he consulted the Emperor Trajan.b [see footnote, below] He asserted that, apart from an obstinacy that refused to sacrifice, he had learnt nothing about the Christian mysteries--nothing beyond meetings before dawn to sing to Christ and to God, and to band themselves together in discipline, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonesty, treachery, and the other crimes. Trajan replied in a rescript [see 1862] that men of this kind were not to be sought out, but if they were brought before Pliny they must be punished. What a decision, how inevitably entangled! He says they must not be sought out, implying they are innocent; and he orders them to be punished, implying they are guilty. He spares them and rages against them, he pretends not to see and punishes. Why cheat yourself with your judgement? If you condemn them, why not hunt them down? If you do not hunt them down, why not also acquit them? To track down bandits through all the provinces is a duty assigned by lot to the garrisons. Against those guilty of treason, against public enemies, every man is a soldier; inquiry is extended to confederates, to accessories. The Christian alone may not be hunted down; but he may be haled before the magistrate; as if hunting down led to anything but haling to the court. So you condemn a man when haled to court--a man whom nobody wished to be sought out, who (I suppose) really has not deserved punishment because he is guilty, but because, forbidden to be looked for, he was found!

Then, again, in that matter, you do not deal with us in accordance with your procedure in judging criminals. If the other criminals plead Not guilty, you torture them to make them confess; the Christians alone you torture to make them deny. Yet if it were something evil, we should deny our guilt, and you would use torture to force us to confess it. For you would not hold judicial investigation of our crimes needless, on the ground that you were certain of their commission from the confession of the name; for to this day, though the murderer confesses, and though you know what murder is, none the less you rack out of him the story of his crime." [11, 13].

[footnote] 'bSee the most famous of all Pliny's letters, book x. ep. 96, and Trajan's reply [book x. ep. 97]; and on both see W.M. Ramsay, Church and Roman Empire, p. 187; H.M. Gwatkin, Early Church History, vol. i. ch. vii. pp. 128 ff.; and F.C. Conybeare, The Historical Christ, 162. Also Bishop Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 55, on the genuineness of the letter, quoting Renan on the improbability of a Christian forger being able "si admirablement imiter la langue précieuse et raffinée de Pline."' [10-11].

PAGE 1861


from: Eusebius [c. 260 - c. 340], The Ecclesiastical History, with an English Translation by Kirsopp Lake, in Two Volumes, I, Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd, MCMLXXX (1926).

"Eccles. History, III."

[Eusebius] 'XXXIII. The persecution which at that time was extended against us in many places was so great that Plinius Secundus, one of the most distinguished governors, was disturbed at the number of the martyrs, and reported to the Emperor the number of those being put to death for the faith, and in the same document mentioned that he understood them to do nothing wicked or illegal except that they rose at dawn to sing to Christ as though a God, and that they themselves forbade adultery, murder and similar terrible crimes, and that they did everything in obedience to the law. In answer to this Trajan issued a decree to the effect that the tribe of Christians should not be sought for but punished when it was met with. By this means the imminent threat of persecution was extinguished to some extent, but none the less opportunities remained to those who wished to harm us. Sometimes the populace, sometimes even the local authorities contrived plots against us, so that with no open persecution partial attacks broke out in various provinces and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various ways. The narrative has been taken from the Latin apology of Tertullian mentioned above of which the translation is as follows:

"Yet we found that this attempt against us was also prevented, for the governor of the province, Pliny Secundus, after condemning certain Christians and depriving them of their rank, was troubled at their number and, not knowing what to do in the future, communicated with the Emperor Trajan, saying that beyond their unwillingness to offer sacrifice to idols, he had found nothing wicked in them. He also mentioned this, that the Christians arose at dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as a God, and in order to preserve their teaching1 forbade murder, adultery, covetousness, robbery, and suchlike. To this Trajan sent a rescript ["a written answer of a Roman emperor"] that the tribe of Christians should not be sought out but punished if met with."

Such were the events at that time.' [validity?] [277, 279].

PAGE 1862


from: The Letters of Pliny [62 - 113], a Historical and Social Commentary, A.N. Sherwin-White, Fellow of St. John's College Oxford, Oxford, 1966. [Note: some examples of scholarly Christian apologetics].

"96. To Trajan [Emperor 98 - 117 (53 - 117)] [discussion: 691-710]

....Preface. It is hardly necessary to defend the genuine character of these two letters [96, 97]...." [691].

"The more subversive criticism of R. Grant, Theol. Rev. (Harvard, 1948), 273 f., calls for more serious comment. He suggests that Pliny wrote up his account not so much from the evidence of the witnesses, as in terms and style borrowed from Livy's narrative of the Bacchanalian scandal. What of the rest of Book X? The supposition must be that the book was a literary compilation like Books I-IX, which is clearly false. It is true that Pliny never quite shakes himself free in X from the literary and oratorical training to which he had devoted his previous life. But this letter like all others in X is a factual report to the Princeps [Trajan], however well[?] written, and whatever the literary echoes...." [692].

"Pliny's narrative is summarized more briefly, and as accurately [?], by Eusebius 3.33. 128-9, who quotes Tertullian. The TRADITION is given with various INACCURACIES by Jerome, Chron. s. Ol. 221; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.31.2; Orosius 7.12.3; Zonaras II. 22 C-D." [692].

"cognitionibus [see 1796] de Christianis [see 1875] interfui numquam. This implies that Pliny knew that such trials had taken place within the period of his public career, and hence at Rome...." [694].

"ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri solet aut quaeri. Merrill, ad loc., PERVERSELY CONSTRUED quid with puniri and quatenus with quaeri, to mean 'what punishment should be inflicted, and how far should the investigation be pushed?' But the order is chiasmatic [chiasmus: "A grammatical figure by which the order of words in one of two parallel clauses is inverted in the other." (O.E.D.))]. The questions expanded in the following sentence are quatenus puniri and quid quaeri. Durry, ad loc., rightly compared Ep. 92 'quid et quatenus aut permittendum aut prohibendum putares', where the order is also chiasmatic. Pliny here does not doubt that convicted Christians are liable to the maximum penalty, but is aware that in cognitio extra ordinem the governor was free to vary the penalty (Appendix, p. 782)." [695-696].

PAGE 1863



Latin text
                    English translation


Tacitus [c. 55 - 120] [Loeb Classical Library (published by Harvard; Heinemann)] Annals 15:44 [see 1852-1853], has the following Latin words, with the root Christ:

Christianos                   Christians
Christus                  Christus


Pliny [62 - 113] [friend of Tacitus and Suetonius (see 1795, 1852)] [Loeb] Letters 10:96 [see 1858]; 10:97, have the following Latin words, with the root Christ:

Christianis                   Christians
Christianus                   Christian
Christiani [see 1875]         Christians (Christian (10:96.5))
Christianos                   Christians
Christo                  Christ
Christianum                   Christian


Suetonius [c. 69 - after 122] [Loeb] The Deified Claudius XXV.4 [see 1856], has:

Chresto                  Chrestus,b

[footnote] "bAnother form of Christus[?]; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is referring to the beginning of the Christian cult in Rome or to some Jews of that name. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, uses the correct form, Christus, and states that he was executed in the reign of Tiberius." [50].

Suetonius [c. 69 - after 122] [Loeb] Nero XVI.2 [see 1878], has:

Christiani [see 1875]         Christians


Tertullian [c. 160 - c. 220] [Loeb] Apology II:6–10 [see 1861]; V:2–7, have the following Latin words, with the root Christ:

Christianis                   Christians
Christo                  Christ
Christianum                   Christian
Christianorum            Christians
Christianos                   Christians


Comment: accuracy (see 1858)? Significance? Stylometry? Literary forensics?

● ● ●

PAGE 1864


from: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Third Edition, Edited by Simon Hornblower, and Antony Spawforth, Oxford, 1996.

"JOSEPHUS (Flavius Josephus) (b. AD 37/8), was a Greek historian [Jewish historian, whose works are written in Greek (Jewish War "probably written originally in Aramaic" (Ox. Dict. C.C.))] but also a Jewish priest of aristocratic descent and largely Pharisaic education (see Pharisees), and a political leader in pre-70 *Jerusalem....

THE FAMOUS TESTIMONIUM TO JESUS IS PARTLY OR EVEN WHOLLY AN INTERPOLATION [FORGERY! (see 1881 ("Forgery Defined"))]." [798].

"LUCIAN (...[Greek word], of Samosata (b. c. AD 120), accomplished belletrist [related to belles lettres ("light entertaining literature", etc.)] and wit in the context of the *Second Sophistic. The details of his life are extremely sketchy, and his own presentations of his biography are literary and therefore suspect. His native language was not Greek [Note: works are in Greek] but probably *Aramaic....

He [Lucian c. 117 - c. 180] was known to *Galen [129 - c. 199] for a successful literary fraud....

His weakest moments to contemporary taste are perhaps as a repetitive and superficial moralist, his most successful when he plays with the full range of Classical Greek literature [was Lucian this educated?, or, is this ability from simulators (forgers)?] in a characteristically amusing way." [886-887].

[an aside] from: History and Silence, Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity, Charles W. Hedrick Jr., U. Texas, 2000.

"the story of the past can be conceived as a writing over an erasure [compare: "palimpsest" [see 1883]]: history is [construction] a rehabilitation." [xiv]. "By the 380's and 390's the conversion of the elite to Christianity had been under way for the better part of a century....Theodosius insisted that the surviving pagan elite convert. By 431 the Christianization of the senatorial class was essentially complete....This forty-year period is vitally important not only for this history of the Roman elite, but also for the general intellectual and cultural history of Europe." [xv]. "For critics, however, it is the nature of the evidence itself that is at issue. The sources are all Christian, and Christians are regarded as untrustworthy and biased." [51]. 'The very word "pagan" [see 1879] is held to be inadequate and inappropriate for use in modern scholarship; it is a slur, a term that "came into common use (only among Christians) at this period: a bit of sarcasm used behind the victim's back, or occasionally, for the fun of it, to his face."51' [page 51]. "Once Christianity had become the imperial religion [dates?], the conversion of the elite began. Many senators converted voluntarily. Others were forced to convert by the increasingly numerous and intolerant Christians and by a series of imperial decrees from Constantine, Constantius II, Gratian, and Theodosius." [54]. "The conversion of the senate to Christianity was far from completed under Constantine [Emperor 306 (312) - 337]." [55].

PAGE 1865


from: Lucian, With an English Translation by A.M. Harmon of Yale University, in eight volumes, I, Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd, MCMLXI (1913).

"Introduction

Lucian was born at Samosata in Commagene and calls himself a Syrian; he may or may not have been of Semitic stock. The exact duration of his life is unknown, but it is probable that he [Lucian] was born not long before 125 A.D. and died not long after 180." [ix].

"AMONG THE EIGHTY-TWO PIECES THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO US UNDER THE NAME OF LUCIAN, THERE ARE NOT A FEW OF WHICH HIS AUTHORSHIP HAS BEEN DISPUTED [see 1760] ("132 pieces" (Grafton))]. Certainly spurious are Halcyon, NERO [see 1870], PHILOPATRIS

[Robert Taylor 1784 - 1844 [see 1879], unfortunately, did not know Philopatris was a forgery (reportedly, 10th or 11th century). Apparently, Philopatris convinced Robert Taylor, that St. Paul [see #4, 105-151] was a historical character

["I [Robert Taylor] have also before quoted the Testimony of Lucian...as satisfactorily proving the identity of St. Paul" (see #24, 496). Thus, was a brilliant mind--tricked, by Christian Forgery! [see 1990 (Philopatris)] [See: #3, 42, 203. (Taylor: St. Peter a Fictional character)]]

[see: Revelations of Antichrist [see 1670-1690], William Henry Burr [1819 - 1908], 1879 (reprinted), 47, 77, 88, 94 (not presented). Like Robert Taylor, William Henry Burr, was tricked, by Christian Forgery! Burr does mention (88): 'many learned critics are convinced that Lucian did not write the "Philopatris," and assign it to a later date, variously from A.D. 261 to 361 [now, reportedly, 10th or 11th century].'

and Astrology; and to these, it seems to me, the Consonants at Law should be added. Furthermore, Demosthenes, Charidemus, Cynic, Love, Octogenarians, Hippias, Ungrammatical Man, Swiftfoot, and the epigrams are generally considered spurious, and there are several others (Disowned and My Country in particular) which, to say the least, are of doubtful authenticity." [xi].

"Very few of his [Lucian] writings can be dated with any accuracy." [xi].

"THERE ARE A HUNDRED AND FIFTY MANUSCRIPTS OF LUCIAN, MORE OR LESS, WHICH GIVE US A TRADITION THAT IS NONE TOO GOOD." [xii].

PAGE 1866


from: Lucian [c. 117 - c. 180], And His Influence in Europe, Christopher Robinson, University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

"For an example of a really elaborate stitching together of Lucianic material, without, however, a specific dialogue providing the groundplan, we must go to Philopatris, an anonymous dialogue, probably of the MID-ELEVENTH CENTURY....

The evidence for systematic imitation of Lucian in the dialogue is anything but fragile. It is of two types, according to the section of the work in which it falls. Sections 1-18 consist in an elaborate introduction in which very little is established other than that Critias has undergone a strange and disturbing experience and that Triepho [compare: Trypho, of Justin Martyr] is an orthodox Christian who will not let Critias swear by the pagan gods. If, as has been suggested, the Christian conspirators are guilty of paganism, there may be a more satisfactory disguised link between the two parts of the dialogue than is superficially apparent. The conspirators would be seen as having cast a spell on Critias, who is released from his trance by the true religion [Christian] of Triepho...." [73-34].

"As late as 1549 the Provincial Synod of Cologne included Lucian in a list of books suitable for teaching purposes, while the Roman Index did not get round to putting a blanket veto on Lucian's works until the astonishingly late date of 1590, although Philopatris [reportedly, 10th or 11th century] and Peregrinus [which century?] were condemned from the 1559 Index of Paul IV onward." [98]. [See: 1990].

"Appendix

(i) List of Works Commonly Attributed to Lucian

The works are arranged in the traditional order, as found in Ms. Vaticanus 90. Those marked * are possibly spurious, those marked ** definitely so. The English titles (mostly as in the Loeb translation) are those I have used in the text, the Latin ones those in more or less standard use since the sixteenth century. Where the title is the same almost to the letter in all three languages I have given only the English....

*Demonax (Dmnaktos bios, Demonax)...

*In Praise of my Country (Patridos enkmion, Patriae encomium)

**Octogenarians (Makrobioi, Longaevi)...

* The Consonants at Law (Dik phnentn, Iudicium vocalium)...

** The Sham Sophist (Pseudosophists soloikists, Soloecista)

* The Ass (Loukios onos, Lucius sive asinus)...

PAGE 1867


* The Syrian Goddess (Peri ts Suris theou, De dea Syria)...

* Astrology (Peri ts astrologias, De astrologia)

** Affairs of the Heart (Ertes, Amores)...

** In Praise of Demosthenes (Dmosthenous enkmion, Demosthenis encomium)...

* Gout (Podagra, Tragoedopodagra)...

** Halcyon (Halkun peri metamorphsen, Halcyon)...

** Swift o'foot (Okupous, Ocypus)

** The Cynic (Kunikos, Cynicus)...

Also included in Mss. [Manuscripts] are the following indubitably spurious works, with their provenance indicated in brackets:

Philopatris (Byzantine) [see 1866]

Charidemus (possibly early Byzantine)

Nero (perhaps a work of the first Philostratus, see M.D. Macleod Loeb Lucian vol. VIII, 505-7 [see 1870 (Macleod)]

The Epigrams (various hands) [239, 240, 241-242].

PAGE 1868


from: Culture and Society in Lucian [c. 117 - c. 180], C.P. Jones, Harvard, 1986.

'Appendix C

Disputed Works

THERE WILL NEVER BE AGREEMENT ON A CANON OF LUCIAN'S WORKS. I have tended to exclude those about which there is strong suspicion, but give here a list of doubtful cases, briefly indicating my reasons for or against authenticity and some recent bibliography. The following are agreed to be spurious and are not noted: Am., Charid., Cyn., Halc., Macr., Nero [see 1870], Ocyp., Philop. [see 1866 (Philopatris)]

Asin. The linguistic arguments seem decisive against authenticity (Helm, RE 13 [1927] 1749; henceforth cited as "Helm"), but the work has had many defenders, thus Macleod in the Loeb translation (8.47-51, esp. 50, "Lucian's own hand had some share in the composition"), Anderson, Studies 34-49; against, Hall, Lucian's Satire 354-367.

Astr. This defense of astrology seems incredible in Lucian: authenticity is argued by Hall, Lucian's Satire 381-388. ["Lucianic origin" (Harmon, Lucian, Loeb, vol. V, 347)]

Dem. Enc. The extreme artificiality of construction and the vocabulary seem to exclude Lucian as the author (Helm, 1736). But for a defense, Baldwin, Antichthon 3 (1969) 54-62; Hall, Lucian's Satire 324-331.

Epigr. Some of these may well be genuine: Baldwin, Phoenix 29 (1975) 311-335.

Paras. This curious pastiche of Plato seems excluded by its language (Helm, 1754), though it is defended by Anderson, Phoenix 33 (1979) 59-66 and by Hall, Lucian's Satire 331-339.

Patr. Enc. This has been supposed a sketch or fragment (Helm, 1754), but without good reason: Bompaire, Lucian écrivain 278.

Pod. This could be genuine, Hall, Lucian's Satire 368-370.

Salt. In favor of authenticity, Ch. 7 at n. 3.

Sal. The difficulties of interpretation tell against attributing it to a master of clarity: in favor, Macleod, CQ 6 (1956) 102-111; against, Hall, Lucian's Satire 298-307. I have not seen the monograph reviewed by Vidalis, REG 93 (1980) 600-602.

Syr. D. In favor of authenticity, Ch. 4 at n. 37.' [End of Appendix C]

[170-171].

PAGE 1869


from: Lucian [c. 117 - c. 180], with an English Translation [from the Greek] by M.D. Macleod, Lecturer in Classics, University of Southampton, in eight volumes, VIII, William Heinemann Ltd, Harvard University Press, MCMLXVII.

"Nero

Nero is attributed to Lucian in N and two other LUCIANIC MANUSCRIPTS, but there can be little doubt that it is the work of one of the three Philostrati, and probably of the first Philostratus [see Addition 26, 1182], whose other works have been lost though their titles are listed in the Suda, rather than his son, Philostratus the "Athenian," who wrote The Life of Apollonius of Tyana [see Addition 26, 1182-1248] for the empress Julia Domna, though her death in 217 A.D. seems to have preceded its publication. The reasons for ascribing Nero to a Philostratus are as follows:

(1) The style is quite unlike that of Lucian, but in the view of C.L. Kayser, the Teubner editor, it is very like that of the Philostrati.

(2) C. 4 of Nero is very like The Life of Apollonius 4.24...." [505].

PAGE 1870


from: Lucian [c. 117 - c. 180], with an English Translation by A.M. Harmon, of Yale University, in eight volumes, IV, Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd, MCMLIII (1925).

'Alexander the False Prophet

[C.P. Jones (see 1869) states the date as: "165 or later" [e.g. "13th" century?]]

[A.M. Harmon] An account of the false priest of Asclepius, Alexander of Abonoteichus. It has been discussed in detail by Cumont in the Mémoires couronnées de l'académie de Belgique, vol. xl (1887).

Although Alexander achieved honour not only in his own country, a small city in remote Paphlagonia, but over a large part of the Roman world, almost nothing is known of him except from the pages of Lucian. Gems, coins, and inscriptions corroborate Lucian as far as they go, testifying to Alexander's actual existence and widespread influence, and commemorating the name and even the appearance of Glycon, his human-headed serpent. But were it not for Lucian, we should not understand their full significance.

Alexander's religious activity covered roughly the years A.D. 150-170. The cult which he established outlasted him for at least a century. It was highly unusual in its character, as Cumont observes. Sacred snakes were a regular feature of sanctuaries of Asclepius; but to give a serpent a human head and style it the god incarnate was a distinct innovation. Moreover, the proper function of Asclepius was to heal the sick, who passed the night in his temple, expecting either to be cured while they slept or to have some form of treatment suggested to them in their dreams. But at Abonoteichus we hear nothing of incubation, and only incidentally of healing; the "new Asclepius" deals in oracles like Apollo, and gives advice on any subject. This, together with Alexander's extravagant claims of divine descent, confirms Lucian in his appraisal of him as an out-and-out charlatan, aiming to play upon the gross credulity of the times and to secure the greatest gain with the least effort.

Lucian was in a position to know a good deal about Alexander, and clearly believes all that he says. Without doubt his account is essentially accurate, but it need not be credited absolutely to the letter. Lucian was no historian at best, and he was angry [amusing!]. In the account of his relations with Alexander he reveals his own personality more clearly than usual, but not in a pleasant light.

The piece was written at the request of a friend, after A.D. 180, when Alexander had been in his grave for ten years.' [End of introduction] [173].

"Alexander the False Prophet [25, 38, 39, 41-42]" [see #3, 81, 413.]

'[Lucian] When at last many sensible men, recovering, as it were, from profound intoxication, combined against him [Alexander], especially all the followers of Epicurus, and when in the cities they began gradually to detect all the trickery and buncombe of the show, he issued a promulgation designed to scare them, saying that Pontus was full of atheists and Christians who had the hardihood to utter the vilest abuse of him; these he bade them drive away with stones if they wanted to have the god gracious. About Epicurus moreover,

PAGE 1871


he delivered himself of an oracle after this sort; when someone asked him how Epicurus was doing in Hades, he replied:

"With leaden fetters on his feet in filthy mire he sitteth [amusing!]."' [209].

'He [Alexander] established a celebration of mysteries, with torchlight ceremonies and priestly offices, which was to be held annually, for three days in succession, in perpetuity. On the first day, as at Athens,1 [see footnote, below] there was a proclamation worded as follows: "If any atheist or Christian or Epicurean has come to spy upon the rites, let him be off, and let those who believe in the god perform the mysteries, under the blessing of Heaven." Then, at the very outset, there was an "expulsion," in which he took the lead, saying: "Out with the Christians," and the whole multitude chanted in response, "Out with the Epicureans!" Then there was the child-bed of Leto, the birth of Apollo, his marriage to Coronis, and the birth of Asclepius. On the second day came the manifestation of Glycon, including the birth of the god. On the third day there was the union of Podaleirius and the mother of Alexander--it was called the Day of Torches, and torches were burned. In conclusion there was the amour of Selene and Alexander, and the birth of Rutilianus' wife. The torch-bearer and hierophant was our Endymion, Alexander. While he lay in full view, pretending to be asleep, there came down to him from the roof, as if from heaven, not Selene but Rutilia, a very pretty woman, married to one of the Emperor's stewards. She was genuinely in love with Alexander and he with her; and before the eyes of her worthless husband there were kisses and embraces in public....

[[footnote] "1The reference is to the proclamation that preceded the Eleusinian mysteries. Its entire content is unknown, but it required that the celebrants be clean of hand, pure of heart, and Greek in speech. Barbarians, homicides, and traitors were excluded; and there was some sort of restriction in regard to previous diet." [225].]

Although he [Alexander] cautioned all to abstain from intercourse with boys on the ground that it was impious, for his own part his pattern of propriety made a clever arrangement. He commanded the cities in Pontus and Paphlagonia to send choir-boys for three years' service, to sing hymns to the god in his household; they were required to examine, select, and send the noblest, youngest, and most handsome. These he kept under ward and treated like bought slaves, sleeping with them and affronting them in every way. He made it a rule, too, not to greet anyone over eighteen years with his lips, or to embrace and kiss him; he kissed only the young, extending his hand to the others to be kissed by them. They were called "those within the kiss."

He [Alexander] duped the simpletons in this way from first to last, ruining women right and left as well as living with favourites. Indeed, it was a great thing that everyone coveted if he simply cast his eyes upon a man's wife; if, however, he deemed her worthy of a kiss, each husband thought that good fortune would flood his house. Many women even boasted that they had had children by Alexander, and their husbands bore witness that they spoke the truth!' [225, 227, 229].

PAGE 1872


from: Lucian, with an English Translation by A.M. Harmon, of Yale University, in eight volumes, V, Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd, MCMLV (1936).

"The Works of Lucian

The Passing of Peregrinus

[C.P. Jones (see 1869) states the date as: "After 180" [e.g. "13th" century?]]

[A.M. Harmon] An account of the life and death of a Cynic philosopher who for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practising it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus...." [1].

"The Passing of Peregrinus [11, 12, 13, 14, 16]"

[note: each paragraph begins with "]

'"[Lucian] It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes 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 himself. 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 lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom1 they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

"Then at length Proteus ["nickname of the philosopher Peregrinus" [535]] was apprehended for this and thrown into prison, which itself gave him no little reputation as an asset for his future career and the charlatanism and notoriety-seeking that he was enamoured of. 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 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 their were read aloud, and excellent Peregrinus--for he still went by that name--was called by them 'the new Socrates.'

"Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succor 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 Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. 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 into custody, most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver1 [see footnote, below]

PAGE 1873


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 such 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.

"However, Peregrinus was freed by the then governor of Syria, a man who was fond of philosophy.2 ....

[[footnotes] "1From the wording of this sentence the allusion is so obviously to Christ himself that one is at a loss to understand why Paul, let alone Moses, should have been suggested. For the doctrine of brotherly love cf. Matt. 23,8: ...[5 Greek words].

2The Roman governor of the province of Syria is meant. Identification is impossible because the date of the imprisonment of Peregrinus cannot be fixed." [15].]

"He left home, then, for the second time, to roam about, possessing an ample source of funds in the Christians, through whose ministrations ["care, aid", etc.] he lived in unalloyed prosperity.' [13, 15, 19].

PAGE 1874


from: A Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Oxford, 1962 (1879).

"Christinus [Christin, is not listed], a um, adj. [Christus], Christian: fides, Cod. Just. 16, 8, 18: lex, ib. 16, 8, 13: religion, ib. 9, 40, 16.--Hence, subst., a Christian, Tac. A. 15, 44; Suet. Ner. 16; Plin. Ep. 10, 97; very frequent in the Church fathers.

--Absol., a Christian clergyman, Cod. Th. 5, 5, 2; 12, 1, 50.--Sup.: Christianissimus, the most Christian, Hier. Ep. 57, 12: princeps, Ambros. Ep. 1, 1.--Adv.: Christin, in a Christian manner or spirit: regere, Aug. Ep. 89.' [End of entry] [328].

_____ _____ _____

from: Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1968.

'Christin ~rum, m. pl. Followers of Christ, Christians.

quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia inuisos uulgus ~os ["Christianos"] appellabat Tac. Ann. 15.44 cognitionibus de ~is ["Christianis"] interfui numquam Plin. Ep. Tra. 10.96(97).I; Suet. Nero 16.2.' [End of entry] [311].

Comment: consider all the extant Pagan Literature. For the Latin words "Christinus" and "Christin" (above), note that the references are from the famous disputed forgeries ["interpolations"], of: "Tacitus"; "Pliny"; "Suetonius" [note: some word forms, do not exactly match dictionary entries]. Reminiscent, of circular arguments. [See: 1864].

[See ('First Use of the Term "Christian"'): 1681; 1683-1687 (from this distance, 2002, I disagree with the results of the author (William Henry Burr, year 1879), 1687. I have not seen convincing evidence for Suetonius, "Adrian" [Hadrian], or, "Aurelius" [Marcus Aurelius])].

PAGE 1875


_____ _____ _____

from: A Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Oxford, 1962 (1879).

"Glilaea, ae, f., = ...[Greek word], the province of Galilee in northern Palestine, Plin. 5, 14, 15, [Section]70.--II. Deriv.:

Glilaeus, a, um, adj., of or belonging to Galilee, Galilean: Gl:laea per arva, Sedul.

4, 188: Glilaeas repetat Salvator in oras, Juvenc. ["C. Vettius Aquilinus Juvencus, Chr. poet, fl. " ["A.D."] 325" [ix]]

3, 195.--Subst.: Galilaei, rum, m. the inhabitants of Galilee, Galileans, Tac. A.

12, 54." [800].

_____ _____ _____

from: Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1968.

"Galilae ~rum. m. pl. The inhabitants of Galilee.

Tac. Ann. 12.54." [753]. [See: 1849 (Johnson)].

Comment: consider all the extant Pagan Literature. For the Latin word "Galilaei" (above), note that the reference, in both Latin dictionaries, is from "Tacitus": Annals 12:54.

PAGE 1876


from: #3, 55-56:

[277.-281. "The Non-Christian Witnesses",
appropriately, very briefly summarized.]

277. 'Within the 1st century after Jesus' death only two Latin authors made undisputed [sic!] mention of Him. Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) said that the Christians were named for a Christus who had been condemned to death by Pontius Pilate. Pliny the Younger (Letter to Trajan: Epist. 10.69 [10.96]) said that the Christians sang hymns to a certain Christus as to a God. The Jewish author Flavius Josephus (Ant. 20.9.1 [Ant. xx.200]) mentioned the martyrdom of James, "a [the] brother of Jesus who is [was ("is" occurs "at Mt. 1:16, 27:17" [see 279.])] called the Christ." One must turn to the Bible for any further 1st-century information about Jesus.

The OT cannot be expected to give any direct historical information about Jesus....There remains only the NT as a source for the life of Jesus and the meaning of His work and person.'

[New Catholic Encyclopedia] [see 278.-281., 363., etc.].

278. ["THE NON-CHRISTIAN WITNESSES"] 'As early as the first few centuries of the present era pious Christians searched the Jewish and pagan writers for references to Jesus, convinced that such references ought to be found in them; they regarded with great concern the undeniable defects of tradition, and, in the interest of their faith, endeavoured to supply the want by more or less astute "pious frauds," such as the Acts of Pilate, the letter of Jesus to King Abgar Ukkama of Edessa [see 1989],1 the letter of Pilate to Tiberius, and similar forgeries. Greater still was the reliance on the few passages in profane literature which seemed to afford some confirmation of the historical truth of the things described in the gospels.' [Arthur Drews].

279. "The shorter Josephan [Josephus c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.] passage [Antiquities xx.200 (see 388.)] mentioning Jesus (in a phrase of half-a-dozen words) is more often defended as genuine, but a number of eminent scholars (who certainly did not share Robertson's view of Jesus) agreed with him in impugning it (cf. 122, p. 11). Although even today it is still sometimes argued that this passage refers to Jesus as 'the so-called Christ' [see Reference 279.], and that a Christian interpolator would not have thus disparaged him, Robertson and others (e.g. W.B. Smith in his Ecce Deus) long ago pointed out that the depreciatory 'so' is not in the Greek, which reads 'Jesus who was called Christ'; and that this wording is Christian, occurring at Mt. 1:16, 27:17 and elsewhere in the NT". [G.A. Wells] [see 363., 387.-393.].

280. "Tacitus' Annals (ca. AD 120)...states that 'Christians derive their name and origin from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius'. This is the only really relevant piece of pagan evidence, and Robertson was quite right to say that, whether genuine or not, it states only what Christians were by then themselves saying about the origin of their sect". [G.A. Wells].

PAGE 1877


281. 'J. Weiss [Johannes Weiss 1863 - 1914] is perfectly correct when he says, as we saw previously: "There is no such thing as a really convincing witness in profane literature [see 244.]." It is true that he is able to console himself for this. "What," he asks, "could Josephus or Tacitus do for us? They could at the most merely show that at the end of the first century not only the Christians, but their tradition and Christ-mythos, were known at Rome. When it originated, however, and how far it was based on truth, could not be discovered from Tacitus or Josephus" (p. 91).' [see: Tacitus, 20-56].

from #1, 2, 13.: "for one who is seeking historical truth...a record held sacred is for the most part fundamentally vitiated." [Vitiated (Random House): 1. spoiled; marred. 2. perverted; corrupted. 3. rendered invalid.]."

from #2, 22, 126.: Why, no christian coins, 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries C.E.? Because the "events", were literary events (Fiction!)--only! [see Reference 126.].

Summary

Reflect on the exhibits presented in this Addition (36); etc. Reflect on the history of Christians, as witnesses. Reflect on Christian presumptions [see #3, 78-79; etc.].

from 1735: presumed Pagan witnesses to (Jesus) Christ and Christians:

Tacitus [c. 55 - 120]: Annals 15:44 (all of Annals?): interpolation [Forgery!].

Pliny [62 - 113]: Epistles 96, 97: interpolations [Forgeries!].

Suetonius [c. 69 - after 122]: The Deified Claudius XXV.4: see Subject Index (1989-1991); etc. Not proof!

Suetonius ["until 121/2 secretary to the Emp. Hadrian." (Ox. Dict. C.C.)]: Nero XVI ("Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." (Loeb)): see Subject Index (1989-1991); 1704-1705 (Strange, year 1875); 1786; 1811. "Hochart ("Hochart, P., Etudes au sujet de la pérsecution des Chrétiens sous Néron, Paris, 1885") justly says that this reference to the execution of Christians in the middle of enumeration of minor police reforms is a clear interpolation." (The Jesus of the Early Christians, Wells, 1971, 187, 340). Interpolation [Forgery!].

Lucian [c. 117 - c. 180]: "Alexander the False Prophet"; "The Passing of Peregrinus": Romances! Only interpolated? When written? [compare: Philopatris (dated to the 10th or 11th century)]. [See: 1848]. Not proof!

PAGE 1878


Question: Who was the earliest Pagan witness to (Jesus) Christ and Christians?

Celsus? [see 1813]. Celsus (reportedly) wrote: "True Discourse", c. 178.

Celsus is known via Origen [c. 185 - c. 254], and his book: "Contra Celsum" ("middle of the 3rd[?] cent." (Ox. Dict. C.C.)). This, unfortunately, is "Christian history". What is true? What is false? Was Celsus a fictional character?

Alter ego of Origen? Ascribed to Origen? Etc.? [see 1736].

Excursus: from: Faiths of Man, Encyclopedia of Religions, Major-General J.G.R. Forlong, 1964 (1906), Vol. 3, 48, 50:

"a large proportion of his [Origen's] 6000 SUPPOSED works are apocryphal, and those known by the Latin translation [from the Greek] of Rufinus [c. 345 - 411] are vitiated by the confession of the editor [Rufinus (see: The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, Philip R. Amidon, S.J., Oxford, 1977, VIII-IX: "It was also in 398 that at the instance of the noble scholar Macarius he [Rufinus] undertook his fateful translation of Origen's First Principles. In his preface he repeated his view that the text had been corrupted by Origen's enemies, and he explained that he had therefore altered or replaced statements of doubtful orthodoxy with other, sounder ones taken from Origen's other works.")] that he [Rufinus] amended Origen where he was wrong or heretical."

"what remains to us [from Origen]--being chiefly in Latin translation [from the Greek]--has been garbled by later orthodox scribes, so that we often remain uncertain as to the real ideas of Origen [see #23, 474]." [End of entry]. [End of Excursus]

'"Origen [castrated self [Eusebius H.E. vi 8] ("self-martyrdom" (Diegesis, Taylor, 92))], actually embodied fraud into a system, practised it with the approbation of his fellows, and gave it the technical name of ECONOMIA, by which it has gone ever since."--Higgins's Celtic Druids.' [Diegesis, Robert Taylor, 1829, 404]

The "Celsus" of Origen, is not "a really convincing ["Pagan"] witness" in the 2nd century. [see 1705; etc.]

Who, is a "Pagan" [see 1865] witness in the 3rd century?

[Please! No Christian apologetics! For example: presumed person, and Christian, "Daniel Dubious", 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century, said (wrote) (attested to, by Eusebius, or some other Christian "witness"): presumed person, and Pagan, "Julius Jupiter", in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century, mentioned Jesus and/or Christ and/or Christian(s).].

Looking for the first "Pagan" witness to (Jesus) Christ and Christians, does one need to look in the famous Fourth Century?

from 1878: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A REALLY CONVINCING WITNESS [TO JESUS CHRIST] IN PROFANE [PAGAN] LITERATURE".

PAGE 1879


APPENDIX

from: Forgery in Christianity, A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion, by Joseph Wheless [1858 - 1950], Lately Major, Judge Advocate, U.S.A.; Associate Editor (in Section of Comparative Law) of American Bar Association Journal; Life Member of American Law Institute; etc., Knopf, MCMXXX.

[For impressive biography, see: THE NATIONAL CYCLOPAEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY, University Microfilms, 1967, Vol. 39, 429-430]. [See: 1792].

"Dedicated
In grateful appreciation
To
Henry L. Mencken
Dean of American Letters and Critics
Theologian Emeritus of
a Treatise on the gods
"

'THE INDICTMENT

I charge, and purpose to prove, from unimpeachable texts and historical records, and by authoritative clerical confessions, beyond the possibility of denial, evasion, or refutation:

1. That the Bible, in its every Book, and in the strictest legal and moral sense, is a huge forgery. [compare: www.christianism.com, main page; etc.]

2. That every Book of the New Testament is a forgery of the Christian Church; and every significant passage in those Books, on which the fabric of the Church and its principal Dogmas are founded, is a further and conscious later forgery, wrought with definite fraudulent intent.

3. Especially, and specifically, that the "famous Petrine text"--"Upon this Rock I will build my church"--the cornerstone of the gigantic fabric of imposture,--and the other, "Go, teach all nations,"--were never uttered by the Jew Jesus, but are palpable and easily-proven late Church forgeries.

4. That the Christian Church, from its inception in the first little Jewish-Christian religious societies until it reached the apex of its temporal glory and moral degradation, was a vast and tireless Forgery-mill.

5. That the Church was founded upon, and through the Dark Ages of Faith has battened on--(yet languishes decadently upon)--monumental and petty forgeries and pious frauds, possible only because of its own shameless mendacity and through the crass ignorance and superstition of the sodden masses of its deluded votaries, purposely kept in that base condition for purposes of ecclesiastical graft and aggrandizement through conscious and most unconscionable imposture.

PAGE 1880


6. That every conceivable form of religious lie, fraud and imposture has ever been the work of Priests; and through all the history of the Christian Church, as through all human history, has been--and, so far as they have not been shamed out of it by skeptical ridicule and exposure, yet is, the age-long stock in trade and sole means of existence of the priests and ministers of all the religions.

7. That the clerical mind, which "reasons in chains," is, from its vicious and vacuous "education," and the special selfish interests of the priestly class, incapable either of the perception or the utterance of truth, in matters where the interests of priestcraft are concerned.

As the Catholic-Protestant-Skeptic Bayle [Pierre Bayle 1647 - 1706], of seventeenth century fame, said: "I am most truly a Protestant; for I protest indifferently against all systems and all sects" of religious imposture.' [xviii-xix].

"FORGERY DEFINED

Forgery, in legal and moral sense, is the utterance or publication, with intent to deceive or defraud, or to gain some advantage, of a false document, put out by one person in the name of and as the genuine work of another, who did not execute it, or the subsequent alteration of a genuine document by one who did not execute the original. This species of falsification extends alike to all classes of writings, promissory notes, the coin or currency of the realm, to any legal or private document, or to a book. All are counterfeit or forged if not authentic and untampered." [xxi].

'"Fraud," says Ingersoll [Robert Ingersoll 1833 - 1899], "is hateful to its victims." The compelling proofs of duplicitous fraud of priestcraft and Church exposed in this book must convince even the most credulous and devout Believer, that the system of "revealed religion" which he "drew in with his mother's milk" and has in innocent ignorance suffered in his system ever since, is simply a veneered Paganism, unrevealed and untrue; is a huge scheme of priestly imposture to exploit the credulous and to live in power and wealth at his expense. Luther hit the bull's-eye of the System--before he established another to pass the same old counterfeit: The Church exists mostly for wealth and self-aggrandizement; to quit paying money to the priests would kill the whole scheme in a couple of years....

Joseph Wheless
New York City
780 Riverside Drive
June 1, 1930' [xxxv-xxxvi].

[Note: Forgery in Christianity, is available on the Internet (several presentations)].

PAGE 1881


from: The Rise of English Culture, by Edwin Johnson [1842 - 1901] [see 1838-1850], M.A., Author of "The Rise of Christendom," "The Pauline Epistles," "Antiqua Mater," etc., with a brief account of the author and his writings, Williams and Norgate, 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, (published posthumously) 1904. [See: 1838 (Comment)]. [See: 1744].

"Edwin Johnson and His Writings [Edward A. Petherick, June, 1930]."

'The late Mr. Arbuthnot [see 1884-1887], Oriental scholar, met Johnson on several occasions to discuss the subject of Chronology with him, and there is no doubt that Johnson would have produced a valuable work on Calendars and Chronological Systems, but his health breaking down, he was obliged to lay aside the mass of notes and extracts which he had accumulated on this subject. This material was subsequently acquired by Mr. Arbuthnot. "The Mysteries of Chronology [see 1884-1887]," which appeared in 1900, was very largely based on information which Johnson supplied. The suggestion, however, for the formation of a new Era, "The Victorian," was Mr. Arbuthnot's own.' [xxiv-xxv].

'II.

The main results of Johnson's researches, as recorded in his printed writings, are briefly these:--

That the History of Europe--especially Ecclesiastical History--is founded largely upon assumption as well as upon tradition, legend, and error, the biographies of real persons being idealized. That the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are proleptic in character. That there was no constituted Christian Church before the "Eleventh" Century of our Era--eight hundred years ago. That the larger part of the so-called "Middle Ages" is an imaginary or non-existent period; the Modern Period beginning soon after the breaking up of the old Roman Empire. We are therefore not so far removed in time from the Greeks and Romans as our Chronological table teaches. Further: Johnson has traced our Ecclesiastical System backwards to the Arabians, who owe nothing whatever to Latin or Greek Christianity--the indebtedness being in the opposite direction. Christianity, in some form, was, however, anterior to all these systems.

These are no wild theories to be summarily rejected. Though some of the statements may seem too bold or too arbitrary, the reader will find the author's arguments quite intelligible, and not unreasonable.

Many have discovered inexplicable anomalies and discrepancies in their reading of History: in Johnson's printed writings they will, I think, find a solution of their difficulties, an explanation of many things hitherto imperfectly or wholly misunderstood, especially of matters in relation to our System of Chronology.* [see footnote, 1883] In the following pages I have endeavoured to bring together some of the anomalies noticed in my own reading. Those given could easily be supplemented by many more in support of our author's arguments.' [xxx-xxxi].

PAGE 1882


[footnote] '*Our own System of Chronology being impugned, I once asked the author [Edwin Johnson], "How do we stand in relation to other Systems?" and suggested that he should make some attempt towards a reconstruction. The notes and memoranda utilised by Mr. Arbuthnot [see 1884 - 1887] may have been a step in the direction indicated.' [xxx-xxxi].

[footnote (not referenced above)] '*There is a story of the Catacombs having been visited in the "Fourth" century by St. Jerome, when a boy. He used to make the circuit of the sepulchres of the Apostles and Martyrs on Sundays; but Jerome (vide Bp. Westcott) writes like a "sixteenth-century scholar." More; when he [Jerome] translated the Old Testament used the sixteenth century signs for punctuation--a thousand years before they came into general use! It is also to be noticed that some of his [Jerome] works are of a late period, and written over older authors [significance?]--palimpsest [sources?].' [xxxix].

[abstractly related to "palimpsest" (above): Palimpsests, Literature in the Second Degree, Gérard Genette, U. Nebraska, c1997 (French 1982). Some words involved: "textual transcendence"; "palimpsestuous nature of texts"; "textual imitation"; "paratextuality"; "transtextuality"; "intertextuality"; "paratext"; "metatextuality"; "hypertextuality"; "architextuality"; "hypertext"; "hypotext"; "metatext"; "transformation"; "imitation"; etc. ["ix", "1", 3, 4, 5, 7]].

"General Introduction" [Edwin Johnson]

'Bacon [Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626] knew that it required uncommon ability to write good History. He is a witness to the fact that it was impossible for the ablest man to write it, simply because "actions memorable" had not been "tolerably reported as they passed." If this state of things, of which Bacon is not the only witness, had been duly noted by students since his time, there would not have been so great a waste of art on the subject of English History, or of Church History in general. Bacon is embarrassed in referring to Church History. He appears to hint that it is artificial. There is abundance of it, "only," he sighs, "I would the virtue and sincerity of it were according to the mass and quantity." Did he say to himself that it was a branch of Posey, that is, "nothing else but feigned history which may be styled as well in prose as in verse," and that its use was to give "some shadow of satisfaction to the mind of man in those points wherein the nature of things doth deny it?"' [24-25].

"Edwin Johnson Writings."

'"Chronology and other Papers:" Tabulated Extracts, Notes and References. Contributed to "The Mysteries of Chronology" by Mr. Arbuthnot, published in 1900 [see 1884-1887].' [566].

PAGE 1883


from: The Dictionary of National Biography, January 1901--December 1911, Oxford.

"ARBUTHNOT, FORSTER FITZGERALD (1833-1901), orientalist, born at Belgaum, Bombay presidency, on 21 May 1833, was second son of Sir Robert Keith Arbuthnot, second baronet, by his wife Anne, daughter of Field-marshal Sir John Forster Fitzgerald [q.v.].... He is remembered for driving a four-in-hand, and for his seaside residence at Bandra, outside the island, where he entertained Sir Richard and Lady Burton in 1876.... Arbuthnot associated himself with Burton in founding the Kama Shastra Society, for the issue to private subscribers of unexpurgated translations of Oriental classics.... Arbuthnot's own books were in the nature of popular compilations, the two most important being 'Persian Portraits' (1887), and 'Arabic Authors' (1890).... He was a member of council and also a trustee of the Royal Asiatic Society, and he took a prominent part in organising the reception of the International Congress of Orientalists that met in London in 1892. He was given to hospitality both at his town house in Park Lane and at his country residence near Guildford. He took a lively interest in his village neighbours, and his memory is preserved by the Arbuthnot Institute, Shemley Green, under the charge of the Wonersh parish council. He died in London on 25 May 1901.' [47, 48].

_____ _____ _____

from: The Mysteries of Chronology, with Proposal for a New English Era to be called The Victorian, by F.F. Arbuthnot [1833 - 1901], Author, Editor, and Translator of Various Works, London, William Heinemann, 1900, And V.E. ["Victorian era"] 64. [Received this book 1/25/2002. Previously quoted (interlibrary loan), #1, 9, 69.].

"PREFACE.

The contents of this very slipshod work are as follows:

Page

Introduction 1

About the Date of the Introduction of the Christian Era into Europe 18

About the Date of the Introduction of 'Anno Domini,' and eventually

of 'A.D.,' our present system 41

About the Date of the Introduction of Arabic Numerals into Europe 72

About the Dates of the Births, Accessions, and Deaths of our

English Kings and Queens, going backwards from Queen

Victoria to William the Conqueror 110

About the Early Chroniclers 161

Some Desultory Conclusions 214

In addition to the above there ought to have been a chapter about the dates of the formulation of history in various countries. As a general rule, history begins with the fabulous, is followed by the legendary and the traditional, all at first handed down orally. A collection of these put into writing lays the foundation of the building, and regular history then follows, which may be divided into the possible, the probable, the positive, according to various circumstances.

PAGE 1884


Now, to write a really good scientific work on all the subjects and contents mentioned above would take about fifty years. Moreover, the author must be a scholar with a good knowledge of Greek, Latin, Arabic, and many other languages, besides being well up in archaeology, astronomy, chronology, geography, history, numismatics, and paleography [also, palaeography]. Possessing none of these qualifications, it may be considered most presumptuous on my part even to attempt to unravel some of the mysteries of the past, mysteries which have been often carefully concealed, distorted, falsified, and misrepresented, so that it is now impossible to get at the real truth about them. One can only suggest the phrase so frequently used by Arab authors, 'God alone knows [see 1879 (Origen)].'

Still, the search after truth has ever been my guiding star, and what a difficult pursuit! In the present day, with all our appliances of civilization, there appear to be more persons occupied in leading people away from the truth than persons engaged in attempting to lead them to it. Moreover, the question of 'What is truth?' is somewhat difficult to answer. Even learned judges, acute lawyers, and intelligent jurymen sometimes fail in their mission.

The collection of facts seemed to be the best basis to work upon, and with this in view the contents of this work were first got together for my own information and guidance. Imperfect as it is in many ways, it struck me that some of the subjects touched upon might interest a few persons, and so for their benefit it has been published. [This paragraph describes my researches, and growth of presentation]

It is impossible to name all the persons who have kindly assisted me, but mention must be made of Mr. Edwin Johnson, who made researches on my account in the British Museum, and who from his own knowledge supplied me with much information about the three writers of the Tudor period mentioned in chap. v. and elsewhere. [see 1882, 1883 (Johnson)]

To the officials of the British Museum and of the State Record Office in Chancery Lane I am also much indebted for assistance, information, and invariable courtesy. And the same thanks are due to the officials of the many museums and collections which I visited at various times in different parts of Europe.

F.F. Arbuthnot.

22, Albemarle Street,

London, W." ["v"-vii].

"It is said that Napoleon called HISTORY 'A FABLE OR FICTION AGREED UPON.' Chronology may be included under the same heading, most certainly the chronology of the time before the introduction of some kind of record." [14].

PAGE 1885


"Chapter I.

About the Date of the Introduction of the Christian Era into Europe.

The LEGEND handed down to us by the Benedictines and other ecclesiastical authorities, and which has been apparently copied into every encyclopaedia and other work of reference, is briefly this: 'Dionysius Exiguus [see #13, 306], a Scythian monk and abbot of Rome, invented the Christian era about the year 532 A.D.'

There is no evidence to show when this legend was first put into circulation. It is quoted by Scaliger (1583) without any attempt at criticism. Since his time this story has been repeated over and over again, so that apparently it is now accepted as an historical truth.

In the French 'Grande Encyclopaedia,' now in course of publication, a distinguished savant, in a short notice on chronology, repeats the statement that the Christian era was invented by Denis le Petit (as the French call him [Dionysius Exiguus]) in the sixth century A.D., but that it did not come into use until the eleventh [see #13, 306 (Exiguus)].

The various compilers of historical and chronological works do not tell the public that the legend has been doubted or denied, probably because they were themselves ignorant of the fact. It is, however, true that some 200 years ago the Jesuit Father Hardouin (1646-1729), in his Latin work on the chronology of the Old Testament, contemptuously rejected the statement about Dionysius Exiguus. Now, Hardouin was a man who knew what he was writing about, and his worth and genius have been valued by a few scholars. But that acute critic of the early Benedictine literature and of other monkish authors was, like many others, certainly not appreciated in his time, as shown by an epitaph, recorded as follows:

'In expectation of the judgment,
here lies
the most paradoxical of men,
by nation a Frenchman, by religion a Roman,
the portent of the literary world,
the worshipper and the destroyer of venerable antiquity.

Favoured in learning,
he woke to publish dreams and thoughts unheard of.
He was pious in his scepticism,
a child in credulity, a youth in rashness,
an old man in madness.' [see Appendix III, 724]

And thus was genius, doubt, and criticism in that age handed down to posterity." ["18"-19].

PAGE 1886


"THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF CHRIST IS NOT KNOWN. It may be said to be founded on chronological calculations connected with the two Herods and the Roman Emperors, and probably made long after the event. The date is now supposed to be some three, four, or more years out in the calculation, BUT STILL IT IS A FACT ACCEPTED, AND NEED NOT BE DISTURBED IN ANY WAY." [21]. [See: 1804 ("too dangerous to tackle")].

"AS IS WELL KNOWN, THE BENEDICTINES AND OTHER MONKS WERE IN THE HABIT OF PUTTING FORTH LEGENDS, LIVES OF SAINTS, AND OTHER WORKS UNDER VARIOUS NAMES. Up to the date of the introduction of printing [see 1991] in the middle of the fifteenth century the whole of the learning of Europe was in the hands of the priesthood, a very close CORPORATION [see #4, 123, 534.], which looked keenly after their own interests, and MANIPULATED EVERYTHING IN ANY WAY THEY CHOSE. THERE WAS NO PUBLICATION, NO CRICITISM, NO CONTRADICTION OF ANY SORT." [22-23].

"Now, this business of forging old literature has existed at all times and at all places [see this Addition (36)]. Mr. Thomas Chenery, in a most valuable and interesting lecture on the Arabic language, given at Oxford in 1869, says (and his remarks apply equally to the Benedictines): 'The notion of ancient Arabic literature, of which some fragments are said to have come down to us, is, or ought to be, quite exploded. The Arabs, for instance, have preserved what they say is the lament of Amr, son of Al Harith, son of Modad the Jorhomi, who was expelled from Mecca and from the care of the Ka'beh, and forced to take refuge in Yemen at some remote time. Albert Schultens believed this Amr to have been contemporary with Solomon, and published the verses among his "Monumenta Vetustiora Arabiae" as "Carmen Salamonis aetatem contingens." But he probably did not know that the Moslem men of letters were among the most unscrupulous and shameless of forgers, and were in the constant habit of placing snatches of poetry in the mouths of the heroes whose deeds they chronicled. The piece in question is in regular metre, determined by the quantity of syllables after the manner of Latin or Greek, and there is reason to believe that this more elaborate form of poetry was introduced at no early period. The conclusion to which we are forced to come is that these verses were probably composed by some versifier under the Khalifs when the old legends of the people were digested into a regular historical chronicle.'" [23-24].

"Now, the whole of the period from the fifth to the fifteenth century was one of great darkness as regards regular historical records, and it is difficult to fix accurate dates with absolute certainty.

It must also be remembered that the two great authorities about the literary work of the Benedictines, viz., Mabillon [1632 - 1707] and Zeigelbauer [Magnoald Ziegelbauer 1689 (1688?) - 1750], only lived during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, many centuries after Cassiodorus and Benedict. During that long interval, and before our present chronology was established, it is highly probable that more was based upon legend and tradition than upon reliable historical evidence." [28].

PAGE 1887


from: Literary Forgeries, by J.A. Farrer [James Anson Farrer 1849 - 1925], With an Introduction by Andrew Lang, Longmans, Green, and Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York, Bombay, and Calcutta, 1907. [See: 1989].

"ANACHRONISMS ARE THE ROCK ON WHICH COUNTERFEIT WORKS ALWAYS RUN MOST RISK OF SHIPWRECK". [2]. [Now, add: Stylometry; Literary forensics].

[Introduction: Andrew Lang] "Mr. Farrer, in a manner unpopular, but scientific, leaves some of his mysteries unsolved. The case of Simonides is the most puzzling of any...." [xvii]. [Andrew Lang was a literary phenomenon].

"Chapter III.

Greek Forgery: Constantine Simonides [1820? - 1867?] [see 1749-1750].

Of all the names which belong to the darker side of literature none is more famous or interesting than that of Constantine Simonides, the Greek, who claims the year 1820 as that of his birth. For with whatever right Simonides is assigned to the forging fraternity, his industry, his learning, and his adventures claim for him a position apart, whilst it may be doubted whether any of his contemporaries in the learned world at all approached him in the art of calligraphy or in his knowledge of palaeography.

And it may be questioned whether the world is yet right as to the truth or falsity of all the claims of Simonides...." [39].

'The Sinaitic Codex.

["Its date is probably about the middle of the 4th[?] cent." (Ox. Dict. C.C.)]

This fact [lie about father [58-59]] of course throws doubt on all that rests only on the word of Simonides. But it does not absolutely disprove all his assertions, of which by far the most amazing was his claim to have written when at Mount Athos in 1840 the Sinaitic Codex (Codex A), which Tischendorf discovered at Mount Sinai under HIGHLY SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCES between the years 1844 and 1859. The claim of Simonides to have transcribed this Codex, at the suggestion of his alleged uncle Benedict, as an intended present for the Czar Nicholas I., was first publicly made in the Guardian of 5th September, 1862, and in the Literary Churchman on 16th December of the same year. Nor could anything be more precise and circumstantial in detail, or more temperate in tone than the letters in which this claim was made. The implication that Tischendorf had mistaken a manuscript of the NINETEENTH century for one of the FOURTH naturally roused that irascible theologian to a condition of fury.

That Simonides was a good enough calligrapher, even at an early age, to have written the Codex, is hardly open to doubt, and it is in his favour that the world was first indebted to him in 1856 for the opening chapters in Greek of the Shepherd of Hermas, with a portion of which the Codex Sinaiticus actually terminates. THE COINCIDENCE SEEMS ALMOST MORE SINGULAR THAN CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY CHANCE.

PAGE 1888


But the experts in PALAEOGRAPHY [see 1990] were strongly on the side of Tischendorf. Tregelles [Samuel Prideaux Tregelles 1813 - 1875], the distinguished scholar and Plymouth Brother, declared that a man might as well pretend that the Alexandrian of the Vatican MS. was a modern work as claim to have written the Sinaitic Codex. And the famous Mr. Henry Bradshaw [1831 - 1886 (see: Dict. Nat. Bio., Vol. 22, 251-254 (impressive!))], who with Tregelles had inspected the Codex itself at Tischendorf's house at Leipsic in July, 1862, declared himself, in a letter to the Guardian of 23rd January, 1863, as being "as absolutely certain of the genuineness and antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus as of his own existence". And Mr. Scrivener [probably, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener 1813 - 1891] who made the Sinaitic Codex his special study, expressed himself equally strongly against the claim of Simonides.

NEVERTHELESS THESE DOGMATIC [see 1736] ASSURANCES ARE NOT QUITE CONVINCING. Simonides' claim was supported on its first appearance by certain letters in the Guardian purporting to come from Alexandria and signed "Kallinikos Hieromonachos". These letters, inspected at a meeting of the Society of Literature, were thought to be in a handwriting identical with that of Simonides and to be written on paper like that used in Simonides' own letters; the inference being that Simonides had written them himself and sent them to Alexandria to be posted back to England (Parthenon, 14th February, 1863). But this alleged similarity of handwriting was never certified by any expert in handwriting.

And the attempt to throw doubt on the existence of Kallinikos failed as completely as the attempt to dispose in the same way of Benedict. Other Greeks besides Simonides had lax ideas of the value of truth. There was Nicolaides, who had been Archdeacon of Salonica from 1839 to 1853; who had visited Mount Athos five times; and who claimed to know all the MSS. existing there intimately; he wrote to the Parthenon that he not only had never heard of Benedict but that he disbelieved in his existence. Yet one has only to refer to Lampros' Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS. to find Benedict's name appended to several MSS., and to one as late as 1844 (though Simonides gave 1840 as the year of his death). (See Nos. 5999, 6118, 6194, 6360, 6362, 6393.) The same work attests as conclusively the real existence of Kallinikos. A MS. dated March, 1867, is signed with the hand of Kallinikos who is "also the least of the monks of the monastery of Russico" (i.e., Pantelemon) (No. 638). And there is another MS. at Pantelemon, copied by the hand of Constantine Simonides on 27th March 1841 (6405), and two other copies of the same work by Kallinikos Monachos (6406, 6407), which prove that Kallinikos and Simonides were at Pantelemon at the same time and associated in the same work.

Simonides, who was always more precise in his information about real or feigned persons, declares that this Kallinikos was born in 1802, a Thessalian, named originally Kuriakos; on his admission to the Church he took the name of Kallinikos, and for his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution he received the surname of Keraunos. Whether this was so or not, Kallinikos was a real person, and his intervention in the controversy with his attestation of having seen Simonides write the Codex cannot be brushed aside as the testimony of a fabulous being.

PAGE 1889


In fact it is upon Kallinikos that the whole question hinges. For Kallinikos is said to have had lithographed at Moscow in 1853 and at Odessa in 1854 certain letters between himself and Simonides an the patriarch Constantius, wherein repeated allusion is made to the Codex prepared by Simonides for the Czar. One of these collections of lithographed letters is called "Autographa" and the other "Spoudaion hupomnema". They are both at the British Museum, presented apparently by Mr. James Young, the eminent antiquary, who received them as a gift from Simonides. But were these letters really lithographed in the years assigned to them in the frontispiece? May they not have been concocted by Simonides in 1863 and then antedated by ten years in order to support his claim? This has never been satisfactorily settled. Mr. John Eliot Hodgkin set himself the task in 1863 of trying to arrive at the truth, and he was informed by a "correspondent of unquestionable reputation at Odessa" that the foreman of certain lithographing works in that city perfectly remembered the printing of the letters at the time alleged. But in the case of Simonides, who was well skilled in lithography, one would be glad of some stronger proof.

As such proof Simonides showed Mr. Hodgkin a letter to himself at Munich from a friend B. Panchalos in London, dated March, 1858, which refers chiefly to these publications by Kallinikos in 1853. A copy of this letter in the handwriting of Simonides is still in the possession of Mr. Hodgkin, with a note by him, to the effect that the original letter was in a peculiar writing and that the postmarks seemed to be real ones. The writer professes to have brought from Odessa to London the letters and some works by Simonides which Kallinikos had lithographed. But Mr. Hodgkin's note bears the date of 21st July, 1863, and it is conceivable that the original letter had been produced at a later date than its apparent one.

But if these lithographed letters really were produced in the fifties, long before Simonides made his claim, and if they prove the truth of his statements concerning his work on the Codex, it is of course possible to maintain that it was not the Sinaitic Codex which he produced, but another. Simonides claimed to have seen his own work, the Codex, at Mount Sinai, when he was there in 1852, and his most important lithographed letters are dated from Mount Sinai in the March and April of 1852. But was Simonides at Mount Sinai at that time? Stewart says, presumably on the authority of Simonides himself, that he went to Mount Athos for the third time in 8th October, 1851, and that he stayed there a whole year, which of course is wholly incompatible with his writing letters from Mount Sinai in the March and April of 1852. But again Stewart may have made a mistake about the dates, and it would be unfair to press his statement too strongly against Simonides.

It is to be regretted that this matter was never cleared up at the time the claim was made. IT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY THE MERE OPINIONS OF TREGELLES OR BRADSHAW, OR BY THE MORE CRITICAL AND PALAEOGRAPHICAL [see 1990] OBJECTIONS URGED BY MR. SCRIVENER in his Introduction to the Sinaitic Codex (1867). The two former examined the Codex two months before Simonides had made his claim to it as his work, so that they had no reason to examine it with suspicion. And Mr. Scrivener's argument that no mere youth of at most nineteen could in a few months have composed a volume of nearly 4,000,000 uncial letters, though convincing about most youths, is not convincing

PAGE 1890


where that youth was Simonides. On the side of Simonides is his unlimited skill in calligraphy; the very audacity of such a claim if entirely baseless; the remarkable presence in the Codex of a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, which Simonides was the first scholar ever to have seen in Greek; the very natural allusions to the work in the lithographed letters; the fact that no visitor to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks; and the very extraordinary story told by Tischendorf of his discovery and acquisition of the Codex. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature.

Simonides appears to have left England somewhat hurriedly in 1864, nor is it known what became of him between that date and the year 1867 when he died, or at least is said to have died, at Alexandria (Notes and Queries for 22nd October, 1867, 3rd Series, xii., 339). His literary activity was extraordinary. Besides the works he published in Odessa, in England and in Germany, he wrote many others which were never published. His chief interest was to prove that his method of interpreting Egyptian hieroglyphics was superior to as well as different from that of Champollion and other Egyptologists, and it may be suspected that he was often not above resorting to trickery in support of his theory. His learning was prodigious, but it occasionally failed him, as where he placed the death of Irenaeus [c. 130 - c. 200] in 292 (a full century after the probable or possible date), and where he drew on Demetrius Magnes for information which that writer could by no possibility have supplied. It was from Demetrius (or Dionysius) Magnes that he drew, as from an inexhaustible well, for his extraordinarily minute information about numberless people, many of whom were long posterior in date to their alleged biographer. But Simonides did not always invent or forge or lie; probably these lapses occupied the smaller portion of his activity, and much of his work was honest, laborious and useful. But naturally discrimination in these circumstances was difficult or impossible, and his contemporaries found it the easier course to reject as spurious anything connected with his name. It is probable that scepticism has gone farther than was necessary in this direction, and that literature has lost in consequence some acquisitions that rightfully belong to it. But of all the figures of the nineteenth century that are connected with the shady side of literature, Simonides, with his extensive learning, his knowledge of manuscripts, his miraculous calligraphy, his passionate nature, and above all his claim to the authorship of the Sinaitic Codex, will ever stand out as pre-eminently the first of his order. In literary ability he surpassed all his contemporaries, but unhappily the essential element of truth formed no part of his mental constitution.' [End of: "The Sinaitic Codex."] [59-66]. [See: 1749-1750].

PAGE 1891


'Chapter VII.

FORGERY IN THE CHURCH.

FORGERY, WHICH HAS INVADED EVERY DEPARTMENT OF LITERARY ACTIVITY, HAS MADE ITS MOST COMPLETE CONQUESTS AND LEFT ITS MOST INDELIBLE MARKS IN THE FIELD OF ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE.

The composition of works in support of definite ends, though it long preceded the Christian era, seems to have acquired increased impetus after the introduction of the new religion had supplied new motives for FICTITIOUS WRITING. The contest from the first between different opinions and doctrines led naturally to works composed in defence of the writer's views, and to their ascription to names which might serve to claim attention and to clothe them with credit.

The consequence has been the HOPELESS BEWILDERMENT of critics of a later date who have vainly attempted to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to distinguish between the genuine and spurious works of the early Christian Church.

A final judgment can never be hoped for regarding such productions as the letters attributed to St. Clement, St. Ignatius, or Polycarp, nor is the mystery likely to be solved as to the authorship of the Sibylline Oracles, the Correspondence of St. Paul and Seneca, or those books of the New Testament which Eusebius placed in his category of Contested Scriptures.

When FORGERY became ECCLESIASTICAL, it touched the infinite. The greatness of the interests at stake, the rivalries of doctrines and churches, produced for an insatiable demand A BOUNDLESS SUPPLY OF FALSE DOCUMENTS. False epistles and false martyrdoms entered so widely into the history of the Christian Church as to HAVE RENDERED THAT [CHURCH] HISTORY MAINLY HYPOTHETICAL.

Even into the earliest and most honest attempt at such a history, that of Eusebius in the fourth century, much that is fabulous has found its way. The correspondence between Christ and Agbar, King of Edessa, has long been relegated to the realm of fiction, though accepted as genuine by Eusebius; and it may be suspected that as little credit is due to such an episode as that of the Martyrs of Lyons [see 1798-1800] which he [Eusebius] relates in his fifth book as illustrative of a world-wide persecution under Marcus Aurelius in the year 177. For no writer, pagan or Christian, before him makes the least allusion to such an event, and Eusebius lived about a century and a half after its alleged occurrence. It is incredible that contemporaries like Tertullian (about 150-240), Clement of Alexandria (150-220), Athenagoras, Origen (185-234), or other intermediate writers like Cyprian or Lactantius, all six of whom wrote specifically on the subject of persecutions, should have conspired to make not the smallest allusion to any persecution of the sort, had such a persecution been an historical reality.

PAGE 1892


Tradition has always connected the name of Irenaeus [c. 130 - c. 200], Presbyter of Lyons at the time, with the authorship of this [apparently, "Martyrs of Lyon"] narrative, and the tradition is amply supported by the style of the composition. As he represents the pagans as searching out even the most obscure Christians, it is not evident how so prominent a Christian as himself incurred no danger at all, but remained an uninjured spectator of the persecution, and was suffered to hold free intercourse with the martyrs in prison. But this is only one of the many difficulties. And a writer who could assert, as Irenaeus did, that he himself had often heard persons "speak with tongues [Yes! Glossolalia! History, to Greek religions (before?) (see Encyc. Brit.)]," and that it was a common thing in the church of his day to raise the dead to life again, has no claim to the unlimited belief that has been vouchsafed to him. He was probably one of the earliest composers of those fictitious Martyria [martyrology? (martyria = "Confirming something by referring to one's own experience." (Internet))] which became so favourite a subject with imaginative writers. And there is strong evidence that he [Irenaeus] also wrote the story of the martyrdom of Polycarp and others at Smyrna (for which an equivocal allusion by himself is the only contemporary evidence with the smallest claim to value). Irenaeus has no title to implicit trust when he relates martyrdoms to which no satisfactory date can be assigned, and which conflict at innumerable points with all that is otherwise known of the history of the time.

No denial of the numerous and cruel persecutions of the early Christians which have blackened the pages of history is involved in the proposition that in no other direction did exaggeration and invention become more conspicuous. Such Martyria were the form that PIOUS FICTION took. On the accepted principle that that must be the truth for which men had been willing to die, martyrdoms were regarded as the best proof of soundness of doctrine. Origen's clear statement, that down to his time those who had actually died for the faith were very few and easily numerable (though attempts have been made to reduce its significance), really governs all the cases of martyrdom recorded of the first two centuries.

And AS THE CENTURIES CONTINUED, THESE FICTIONS INCREASED IN VOLUME, till at last we reach that Bollandist collection in sixty-four colossal volumes which it took many generations of Jesuit writers more than 150 years to complete, from the time when John Bollandus [1596 - 1665] began the work: perhaps the most astonishing literary enterprise that the world can show, though certainly as HISTORICALLY WORTHLESS as it is wonderful in execution.' ["126"-129].

PAGE 1893


'....But ecclesiastical forgery never ceased. Dominican writers themselves confess that St. Thomas of Aquinas had been deceived by a forgery when he relied on certain passages of the Greek fathers, more especially of Cyril of Alexandria, to introduce into dogmatic theology the doctrine of the infallibility and absolute power of the Pope; and that St. Thomas, himself deceived, deceived a long succession of subsequent theologians and canonists. And to the same end served many a history of the Church, deliberately falsified. When one considers all that flowed from this systematic fraud, all the struggles between Popes and secular rulers, the depositions of kings and emperors, the excommunications, the inquisitions, indulgences, absolutions, persecutions and burnings, and reflects that all this miserable history was the direct product of a series of forgeries of which the "DONATION OF CONSTANTINE" and the "FALSE DECRETALS ["PAPAL DECREES"] [see 1742-1743]" were not indeed the earliest, but the most important,

ONE IS DISPOSED TO WONDER WHETHER FALSEHOOD RATHER THAN TRUTH HAS NOT HAD THE MORE PERMANENT EFFECT ON THE DESTINIES OF MANKIND. [see 1897]

But the light of truth penetrated at last even this egregious edifice of fiction. In the fifteenth century criticism effectually pierced the thick mass of deceit, and exposed the spuriousness of the "Decretals," the "Donation," and of much besides. To Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa and Laurentius Valla belongs the honour of first establishing the truth; and remarkable it is that, despite the damaging blows dealt by Valla's treatise at the papal system, he was taken into the service of Nicholas V. after its appearance, and received both from him and his successor, Calixtus III., signal marks of their favour.

Nor in this honourable rivalry must Reginald Pococke, for a brief spell Bishop of Chichester, be forgotten, who about 1449 published that enlightened work against the Lollards, called the Repression of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy, which with other books of his he was not only compelled to recant but to burn with his own hands at St. Paul's Cross a few years later. The attempt to vindicate the genuineness of the "Decretals" ["papal decrees"] by the Jesuit Torres in 1572 led to its more total discomfiture at the hands of the Calvinist divine David Blondel in 1628. And now it only remains as the greatest monument of successful imposture that the world can show or that the genius of man has ever produced; the strongest chain for the enslavement of the human spirit that the Catholic priestcraft ever succeeded in forging.' [End of Chapter VII.: "Forgery in the Church."] [143-144].

"So true is Dr. Johnson's dictum that patriotism is often the last refuge of a scoundrel [see #3, 91, 307. ("Politics"; "religion")]." [End of Chapter XII.: "A French Forger: Vrain-Denis Lucas."] [214]. Comment:

RELIGION IS COMMONLY THE REFUGE OF SCOUNDRELS.

PAGE 1894


from: Practical Life and The Study of Man, by J. Wilson [Jacob Wilson 1831 - 1914], Ph.D., Author of "Errors of Grammar," "Practical Grammar," "Phrasis: a Treatise on the History and Structure of the Different Languages of the World," "Religion as Seen by the Light of the Nineteenth Century," Etc., Etc., Newark, New York: J. Wilson & Son, Publishers. 1882. [found in a San Diego bookstore (Bountiful Books), and first seen (at the completion of Addition 36), 1/30/02 [see 1644]].

[See (Biography of Jacob Wilson): The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Volume XVI, 81: "soldier, lawyer, educator and author"; "Nominated for Congress in 1874"; "In 1880 he was a Democratic presidential elector."; "He loved nature, music, art and literature, and his knowledge of science and philosophy made him a charming and brilliant conversationalist."].

Inscription (faded ink): "Compliments of the Author"

"[printed dedication]

To
His Son,
Jacob Wilson, Jr.,
for
His Success in Printing
and
His Devotion to the Art.
This Work
is
Affectionately Dedicated
by
His Father, The Author."


'SHAMS AND SHAMS.

The department of shams in this world's affairs is more extensive than even observing persons would believe. THE FONDNESS OF PEOPLE, AND ESPECIALLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR SHAMS, AND THINGS THAT ARE ABSURD AND ENTIRELY UNBELIEVABLE, IS ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING. If our ran, in point of intelligence, depended upon what we believe, we might easily pass for a nation of idiots. Our daily walks and our life's doings are full of ridiculous shams....

ONE OF THE FLOURISHING RELIGIONS OF THE DAY IS MORMONISM. IT WAS BUILT UP, AS EVERY ONE KNOWS WHO IS ACQUAINTED WITH ITS RISE AND PROGRESS, UPON FRAUD AND SHAM. Yet it rises, spreads and prospers; every day adds to the strength and durability of the foundations, and to the permanence and importance of the institution which they support. How it [Mormonism] arose, and what was the history and character of the man with whom it originated, is well set forth in the following paragraph taken from the North American Review:

PAGE 1895


Joe Smith [Joseph Smith 1805 - 1844] [see Additions 26, 31, 35: pages 1211-1212, 1408, 1698] was born in Rutland, Vt., about the time that Wingate, the combined forger and religious charlatan, made such a sensation there. He removed, when a youth, to Palmyra, New York, and there Rigdon found him. Smith was full of magnetism, full of warm blood, a hearty, generous fellow--from the description an original, untutored Jim Fisk. After proper training Smith became the prophet, and Rigdon the inspiration behind him, putting cunning words in the mouth of the boor. At last Smith finding how pleasant it was to play prophet, and flattered by the devotion paid him, drew away from the cold Rigdon. For one of his sensual nature, it was but natural to conclude that if celestial plural marriages were good, it was a grievous waste of time to wait for death to sanctify them; that real women were greatly to be preferred to doubtful and unsubstantial ghosts, and that the right thing was to be sealed to those still in the flesh. So he had a revelation; polygamy became a part of the Mormon religion, and Joe Smith a little Mohammed. Followers began to flock rapidly around Smith. Probably without being conscious of the fact, he had made animalism the key-stone in the arch of his creed, and given to his church all the adhesiveness which cements Christian creeds, and in addition all the fascination which, to sensual natures, clings to Mohammedism. Thenceforth the institution thrived until it became so much of a nuisance, and took on attributes of such menace to free government, that in a paroxysm of rage the mob killed Smith [see Addition 26, 1211]. Though his life had been full of irregularities, in the hearts of his followers his death made him a martyred prophet, who had died for his people, and ever since he has been held by them as one to be reverenced next to the Nazarene [Jesus].

That the golden plates were originally deposited in a hill near Palmyra, and were finally given to Smith, who, after much difficulty, deciphered them, and that Smith was a holy man, and was sent by God to thus raise up and direct his people, all this is something that every true Mormon steadfastly believes. But the Mormon is not lacking in intelligence. He is about up to the average in that regard. He believes in his sham, and rejects all other shams. And so it is with all men. They ["men"] all believe in shams, but are very precise about the particular sham which they decide to adopt.

The proudest and most enlightened people on the earth are given to belief in shams and impostures. We recently saw an account in a French journal in regard to two most remarkable relics which were exposed for sale at a curiosity shop in Paris. One was a piece of stuff resembling a dried banana peel, and on the card attached to it an inscription was traceable to the intent that the substance was "a piece of skin of the serpent which tempted mother Eve in Paradise. Adam killed the reptile next day with a spear, of which the trace can yet be seen. Authenticity guaranteed by savants and theologians." The other curiosity is a long black hair, attached to a piece of parchment by some wax. This inscription reads: "Hair of Charles II," known as "the bald king of France." Doubtless some one will be found to purchase even these relics, for they must be genuine. Read the history of the swindling concerns in the cities, and observe how the people catch at the improbable and incredible. Let some one advertise what cannot be done, and most people would believe it from the very miraculousness of the affair. Read the quack medicine certificates. They are generally frauds from beginning to end, and yet they are very entertaining and impressive literature for many people. [see 1991 (relics)].

PAGE 1896


Men are perpetually striving to be what they cannot be, and seeming to be what they are not. If it were possible to weigh sham and honesty by the same standard of power and influence in this world, we do believe the former [sham] would greatly overbalance the latter [honesty] [see 1894]. Every man, even in his daily walks, appears with his face disguised with a mask. Men are constantly pretending to be what they know they are not. It is thus that it happens so often that the unsuspecting creditor is taken in by the too plausible debtor. It is thus that men are deceived in a thousand other ways, and made to repent the confidence they had reposed in the pretensions of others. It is thus that innocent and unsophisticated people come to believe that a man is a whole man, when the fact often is, he is only half or three-quarters of a man--or, perhaps, is no man at all. The devoted student of human nature finally learns that there are wooden men, putty men, men of straw and spurious men. They have all the semblance of true men--nevertheless they are not men in the strict sense of the term--they are not genuine.

Alas! this is an age of sham. It thrives, it grows, it strengthens, it prospers--and all this on a soil where honesty and truthfulness can do little more than gain a bare living. PEOPLE LOVE SHAM, AND THEREFORE PATRONIZE IT. The present as it is, and the future as it should be, seem to afford little real satisfaction to any one. We want to get out of ourselves and away from ourselves; or, as Lord Shaftesbury has it, "A RESTLESSNESS TO HAVE SOMETHING WHICH WE HAVE NOT, AND TO BE SOMETHING WHICH WE ARE NOT, IS THE ROOT OF ALL IMMORALITY."' [49-53]. [End of: "Shams and Shams."].

'FICTIONS OF HISTORY.

Does not the world make its own heroes after all? Men are not heroes till the world pronounces them such; in other words, makes them such. It is curious to see what a long time it takes the world to bring out its hero and give him his proper stage dress--sometimes a century after he was born, and sometimes even more. When a man dies, we put him into the ground, and then administer on his effects; and not only on his effects, but on his character and conduct also. The development of his personal history goes on just the same as if he were living, with this difference, that he is no more at hand to speak in his own defense, or correct the false passages that some crazy head, or malicious hand, may put into history. It must never be forgotten that the one that sees things has as much to do with the view that is taken of them, their appearance and effect, as the things have themselves.

IT SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT WHAT IS WRITTEN IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE, even if said honestly and with the utmost fairness. What the author says is only his view of the matter. He only gives his ideas of the subject, and simply paints the picture as he finds it represented to his eye. To the eye of some one else, it may appear quite different. Many things are to be taken as facts only on condition that other facts are overlooked and forgotten. Bonaparte's crossing the Alps is called the greatest feat of the kind known to history, and yet MacDonald's passage of the Splugen was far greater, far more difficult, and was attended with much greater perils.

Page1897


HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR US TO DECIDE WHAT TO BELIEVE AND WHAT NOT TO BELIEVE OF ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN HISTORY! [see 1736] ....

Man never has known, and probably never will know, just how much of all that which we believe to be fact, is purely and mathematically true, and how much is, either in whole or in part, merely a product of the imagination. It is really strange to see how much of that which we know to be unqualifiedly and unconditionally true, as, for instance, the laws of health, the rights of individuals, and the like; how much of these, we repeat, we treat as fictitious and imaginary, while other things, such as the creatures of romance, the fancies of poetry, etc., which we know to be false, we treat with the greatest consideration, as being unquestionably real. Indeed, the mind becomes uncertain as to what is fiction and what is not, and hence it happens that most of the leading characters described in books of romance, as Blue Beard, Robin Hood, Robinson Crusoe, Pickwick and Sam Weller, have just as real an existence for us, in our minds, as any of the figures in our most reliable histories. And then there are the people, and the deeds of people, that belong to our poetry. What man is more real for us, or who that ever lived and breathed and acted, was more living and more substantial than Iago, Macbeth, Shylock, Ulysses, Ajax, Romulus, Helen, Paris, Hercules, and a thousand other important characters that we need not mention? If these people never lived, and if they never were flesh and blood, and bone and sinew, like us, who that ever lived, except the few that we see now around us perhaps, were more living and more real than they?

Why, the truest and most reliable book that ever came from the printing press, the Bible, is now doubted by men, and some of its most devoted friends pronounce this portion allegory, that fable, that fiction, and that as simply and unmistakably a falsehood. We are obliged to doubt whether there ever were such folks in the world as Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and David, and Goliah [Goliath], and Samson, to say nothing of beings so difficult to comprehend as God himself and the Devil. BUT IF THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUE, AND ALL THAT IS IN IT, WHAT BOOK THAT IS A HUNDRED YEARS OLD IS TRUE? What book is founded on better authority, or is written by men who were more truly inspired? What book is supported by such an array of concurring testimony as the Holy Bible? If the Bible, with its accumulated testimony of two thousand years, will not stand criticism, where is the one book that will?

PAGE 1898


WORKS OF ROMANCE ARE FOUNDED ON FACTS [see Addition 35, 1718 (Lino Sanchez)], AND WHAT MORE CAN BE SAID OF HISTORY?

Fact furnishes the frame work, the warp, and imagination puts in the woof. It is so, and to a greater or less extent must be so, with everything that was ever written. The hard facts are there, but the dressing up is done by the author. Perhaps, after all, what we believe to be true is only what we imagine to be true. No doubt Herodotus [c. 485 - c. 425 B.C.E.] believed all he wrote, Virgil [70 - 19 B.C.E.] and Homer [8th century B.C.E.] all they wrote, and Josephus [c. 37 - c. 100 C.E.] all he wrote, but WE, IN THIS INCREDULOUS AGE, BELIEVE VERY LITTLE OF ALL THAT THESE MEN WROTE. We doubt very much as to Livy, whether it is part romance and part true, or all romance and none true. So it is with the Cyropedia [see Additions 26, 27: pages 1196, 1201, 1206, 1208; 1260 (Cyropaedia)] of Xenophon [c. 431 - c. 352 B.C.E.], and some of the biographies of Plutarch [c. 46 - c. 120] [(added 10/31/2005) see M.I. Finley, "Plutarch, Historical Novelist", "New York Review of Books", IX, September 14, 1967, 29-31]. Thus we are in a quandary all the time, and we do not see that it makes the slightest difference in reality whether the things reported did happen or did not. It is enough to know that all of them might have happened. It is the principle and the lesson we are after, rather than the absolute fact itself. Sir Robert Walpole [1781 - 1856] said:--"Don't read history, that must be false." Men, generally, are not half as good as they are painted in history, and generally not half so hideous and wicked. It is impossible to tell in such cases how much to believe, when we know not the prejudices, the jealousies, and perhaps the blindness of the author. "All history," as one writer well says, "must be fiction"; and Hume [David Hume 1711 - 1776] was not far from the truth when he exclaimed:--"We are all in the wrong."' [53-54, 56-58].

[End of: "Fictions of History."].


Excursus (added 9/7/2005): "WE HAVE NOT THE THOUSANDTH PART OF THE WRITINGS OF THE ANCIENTS: IT IS FORTUNE THAT GIVES THEM LIFE, LONGER OR SHORTER ACCORDING TO HER FAVOR; c[c = written between 1588-92, published 1595 (John Holyoake, Montaigne, Essais, 1983)] AND IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO WONDER WHETHER WHAT WE HAVE IS NOT THE WORST, SINCE WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE REST." [Essays of Montaigne, tr. by Frame, II:16, "Of glory"]. End of Excursus.


Comment: from memory, University of California, San Francisco, c. 1967: (reportedly) Sir William Osler [1849 - 1919] [see 1954], to a graduating Medical class:

Gentlemen!, I have a confession to make! Half of what we have taught you is in error--and furthermore, we don't know which half!

PAGE1899

Postscript




HOME