Josephus and the New Testament

JOSEPHUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

HUGH MONTEFIORE Fellow and Dean of Gonville and Caius College,

Cambridge

'ill L O N D O N A.

R.

M O W B R A Y

&

Co.

LIMITED

© H.

W. Montefiore,

First E n g l i s h edition, F r o m Novum

Testamentum,

i960

1962 Vol. I V .

F a s c . 2 & 4, 1960, E . J . B r i l l , L e i d e n

Made in Great Britain at the Pitman Press, Bath

CONTENTS PAGE

Introductory

7

1

The Star at Jesus' Birth

8

2

The Rending of the Temple Veil

16

3

The Cleansing of the Temple

22

4

The Resurrection

28

5

The Ascension

29

6

Pentecost

31

JOSEPHUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT The object of this study is to point out similarities between some important events recorded in the canonical Gospels and Acts on the one hand, and a series of prodigies recorded by Josephus in his Jewish War on the other hand, and to suggest a possible connection between them. The paucity of references to Gospel events in contemporary or near-contemporary non-Christian literature is well known. Apart from brief allusions in Tacitus ) Suetonius ), and some contested passages in Josephus' writings ), there is almost nothing else ). The Talmud contains some excerpts about Jesus, but these are scant and for the most part late and worthless ). Apart from their 1

2

)

3

4

5

x

) Annals, X V , 44. ) Claudius, 25. Suetonius is here referring t o the influence of the risen Christ. ) Antiquities, 18, 3, 3. Cf. also the relevant passages in the Slavonic version of Josephus, translated b y H . S t . J. T H A C K E R A Y in Josephus (London, 1928), V o l . I l l , p p . 635-58. ) F o r the relevant texts, cf. C. R . H A I N E S , Heathen Contact with Christianity during the first century and a half, (Cambridge, 1923); t o which m a y be added the letter of M a r a ben Serapion (for t e x t cf. W . C U R E T O N , Spicilegium Syriacum, (London, 1855), p p . 73 f.), and citations from Thallus and P h l e g o n (for t e x t s cf. F . J A C O B Y , Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, (Berlin, 1929), Vol. I I , p p . 1 1 5 6 ff., 1 1 5 9 ff.). T h e early Chinese siitras of Christ w h i c h were discovered in this c e n t u r y m a y be d a t e d A . D . 637 and 641 respectively (cf. P. Y . S A C K I , The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China ( T o k y o , 1937), p. 1 1 7 ) and t h e y do not contain reliable agrapha. Muslim collections m a y be consulted c o n v e n i e n t l y in L o g i a et A g r a p h a D o m i n i Jesu a p u d Moslemicos Scriptores, asceticos praesertim usitata, ed. M . A S I N et P A L A C I O S , Patrologia Orientalis, vol. X I I I (Paris, 1919), p p . 3 2 7 - 4 3 1 ; vol. X I X (Paris, 1926), pp. 528-624. T h e y are generally considered t o be spurious (cf. J. J E R E M I A S , Unknown Sayings of Jesus ( E . T . , L o n d o n , 1957), P- 7)2

3

4

5

) J. K L A U S N E R , writing in Jesus of Nazareth ( E . T . , L o n d o n , 1929), summarises the evidence as follows: 'There are reliable statements t o the effect t h a t his n a m e w a s Y e s h u ' a (Yeshu) of N a z a r e t h ; t h a t he 'practised sorcery' (i.e. performed miracles, as w a s usual in those days) and beguiled and led Israel a s t r a y ; t h a t he e x p o u n d e d scripture in the same w a y as t h e Pharisees; t h a t he h a d five disciples; t h a t he said t h a t he was not c o m e t o t a k e a w a y a u g h t from the L a w or t o add t o it; t h a t he w a s hanged (crucified) as a false teacher and beguiler on the e v e of the Passover w h i c h happened

8 testimony to the death of Jesus (which is hardly questioned today in any case), these non-Christian sources give no help in establishing the key events on which the Christian kerygma is based. It is, however, hardly surprising that few of the incidents recorded in the Gospels about Jesus found their way into the writings of nonChristian authors of the period. For example, the healing stories, which take up so much of S. Mark's Gospel, would have had, for the non-Christian, only a local interest, and in any case they were not without parallels ). Similarly, most of the so-called 'nature miracles' would have had only a local interest for the outsider and could be paralleled by other similar stories in the ancient world ). We should hardly expect that the teaching of Jesus would have excited the interest of non-Christian writers. The Jews would have deliberately omitted references to it, and non-Jews would probably not have heard of it. Nor would we expect to find in non-Christian sources accounts of Jesus' clashes with the Jewish hierarchy. There are, however, a few events in the Gospels and Acts which might be thought to have aroused more general interest. These may be listed as follows: 1. The Star at Jesus' birth. 2. The Rending of the Temple Veil. 3. The Cleansing of the Temple. 4. The Resurrection of Jesus. 5. The Ascension of Jesus. 6. The Descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. 1

2

1. The Star at Jesus' Birth. In Matthew's birth stories there is an account of a star which guided men from the East to the infant Jesus in Bethlehem ). 3

on a S a b b a t h ; and t h a t his disciples healed the sick in his name'. F u r t h e r statements a b o u t Jesus K L A U S N E R regarded as of a tendentious or untrust­ w o r t h y character (op. cit. p. 46). *) Cf. M a t t , xii 27. " T h e researches of Weinrich and F i e b i g leave us in no d o u b t t h a t in external respects the parallels are r e m a r k a b l y close". (V. T A Y L O R , The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, (London, 1945), p. 126. Cf. R. B U L T M A N N , Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition (Gottingen, 1931), P. 253. ) E . g . , the stilling of the storm in M k . iv 35-41, w i t h w h i c h B U L T M A N N (op. cit., p. 249) compares Berach. xi 1, P l u t . Caesar 38, D i o Cassius, X L I , 46;' or the turning of water into wine in J o h n ii 1 - 1 1 , w h i c h m a y be compared w i t h Euripides, Bacchae, 704-7; A t h e n a e u s , Deipnosophistae, I, 34; P a u sanias, 6, 26, 1. ) M a t t , ii 1-12. 2

3

9 It has often been suggested that this tale is a religious myth rather than a historical account of actual events. The stories in Matthew are certainly full of religious significance. "He was revealed to the humble and ignorant first, then to the honourable and learned; to the poor first, and then to the rich; to the West first, and then to the East. He was revealed to the astrologers by a method suited to their understanding. And their object in coming to Jesus was not personal advantage but solely to give him homage'' ). If the story of the Magi is unhistorical (in the sense that it is not based on what actually happened), then some satisfactory account must be given of the origin and development Of the tale. Some scholars have pointed out that legends naturally developed in antiquity around the birth of great men; and parallels have been adduced from the Old Testament ), rabbinic writings ) and the works of pagan historians ). Others have regarded the story as a myth which arose to show the fulfilment of Old Testament testimonia ), while the suggestion has been put forward that Matthew's account of the Magi grew out of the story of the Magi's visit to Nero in A.D. 66 ) . None of these explanations seem to be adequate to explain Matthew's tale, and the possibility must be investigated that Matthew based his story on historical events ). 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

x

) A . H . M C N E I L E , The Gospel According to S. Matthew (London, 1938), p. 22. ) E . g . , t h e birth of Samson in Judges xiii. ) E . g . , t h e birth of Moses according t o haggadic tradition. Cf. R. B L O C H , 'Quelques aspects de la figure de Mo'ise dans la tradition rabbinique', Mo'ise, Ihomme de Valliance (Paris, 1955), PP- 102-7. ) E . g . , the portents w h i c h Suetonius records as h a v i n g occurred a t the t i m e of A u g u s t u s ' birth (Augustus, 94), or the bright star w h i c h appeared a b o u t the time of Alexander's birth and w h i c h was noted b y the Magi (Cicero, de Div. I , (22), 47). ) T h e most obvious testimonium is N u m . x x i v 1 7 (cf. Test. X I I Patr., Judah, 24, I ) . T h i s testimonium w a s evidently well known, for it has turned u p in a Q u m r a n fragment (cf. J. A L L E G R O , 'Messianic References in Q u m r a n Literature', Journal of Biblical Literature, L X X V ( i 9 5 6 ) , 1 8 2 I ) . T h e M a t t h a e a n story also suggests other O l d T e s t a m e n t passages; Ps. Ixviii 29; l x x i i 10f. ) P l i n y , Nat. Hist. 30, 2, (6), 1 7 ; cf. Suetonius, Nero, 1 3 ; D i o Cassius, LIII, iff. ) I t m a y be noted t h a t subsequent investigation has corroborated the historicity of a not w h o l l y dissimilar portent t o t h a t of M a t t h e w . According t o Justin, Epitome of the Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus, X X X V I I , 2, a new star appeared a t the conception and in the accession year of Mithridates E u p a t o r . P l i n y , Nat. Hist. 2, 26, (24), 95, mentions the naming of a n e w star a t this t i m e b y Hipparchus. Julius Obsequens, Liber Prodigiorum 27 (86), includes a portent a t the same period. These celestial phenomena 2

3

4

6

8

7

10 Attempts have been made to relate the Matthaean account to the known movements of heavenly bodies. KEPLER suggested that the reference to 'the star at early dawn' might be an allusion to three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn which he had calculated to have occurred in B.C. 7 ) . KEPLER'S calculations were later confirmed by IDELER ) . PRITCHARD, however, undertook a fresh investigation of the matter, and his findings were corroborated subsequently by the Astronomer Royal's staff at Greenwich ). There were indeed three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in B.C. 7, but these took place not on the dates which KEPLER had calculated, but on May 29, September 29, and December 4 *).. PRITCHARD showed that a still closer conjunction had taken place in B.C. 66, and that in B.C. 7 the conjunctions were not so close as to give the impression of a single bright star to the naked eye ). These conjunctions in B.C. 7 were certainly noted by contem­ porary Babylonian astronomers ). It is, however, uncertain that they would have been regarded as a portent of a coming world ruler. Certainly Jupiter was the god of the Romans, while Saturn was regarded by some as the tutelary planet of the Jews ). Their conjunction in Pisces (the first of the signs of the Zodiac) might possibly have been thought to imply that in the New Order the Jews would engulf the Romans. It is true that in late mediaeval Jewish writings such a conjunction was thought to be specially significant for the Jews ). There is, however, no direct evidence that the Jews of Jesus' time attached any special significance to such a conjunction ), although there was certainly a belief in ancient X

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

are confirmed b y three entries in Chinese records. J. K . F O T H E R I N G H A M , ' T h e new star of H i p p a r c h u s and the dates of birth and accession of Mithridates', Monthly Notices of the R. Ast. Soc. L X X I X (1919), 162 f., has brought together all this evidence to corroborate the date of Mithridates E u p a t o r ' s birth w h i c h R E I N A C H had calculated on independent evidence. *) Cf. De Stella Nova (Prague, 1606), p. 134 f. ) Handbuch der Mathematische und Technische Chronologie (Berlin, 1825), vol. I I , pp. 400 ff. ) Monthly Notices of the R. Astr. Soc, X V I (1856), 215 f. ) Memoirs of the R. Astr. Soc, X X V (1856), 1 1 9 . a

8

4

6

) Cf. 'Star of the W i s e Men', Smith's v

J

Dictionary

of the Bible,

(London,

1863), ° l - H I . PP- 3 7 4 •) Cf. P . S C H N A B E L , 'Der jiingste datierbare Keilschrifttext', Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, X X X V I (1925), 66-70. ) Cf. Tacitus, Histories, V . 4. ) Cf. A . E D E R S H E I M , The Life and Times of Jesus Messiah (London, 1887), vol. I, p p . 2 1 1 f. where the fifteenth c e n t u r y R a b b i A b a r b a n e l is cited. •) For R a b b i n i c v i e w s on the constellation of the L a s t D a y s , cf. S T R A C K 7

8

II

Jewish tradition that a star would appear two years before the birth of the Messiah ). There is also evidence of a widely disseminated belief that a world ruler would appear in the East, although in extant writings this belief cannot be shown to have been current until about A.D. 70 ). But it is not impossible that such a belief was held by Jews earlier than this. MUNTER first drew attention to the fact that Chinese astronomers had noted the appearance of an evanescent star or comet which appeared in the heavens in B.C. 4 ) . In fact, Chinese records ) refer to an unusual heavenly body visible in B.C. 5, as well as in B.C. 4 ) . These stars would have been visible in Palestine and Babylonia ). It is not quite clear from the records whether these celestial bodies were comets or novae, or whether there were two separate stars, or one star which appeared in both years. No comet known us now would have been visible at these times, but if it was in hyperbolic orbit, or in an elliptical orbit of long periodicity, nothing would be known about such a comet now. The upshot of this cursory investigation must be necessarily inconclusive. It is certain that in B.C. 7 there were three conjunc­ tions of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces. It is certain that in B.C. 4 x

2

3

4

5

6

and B I L L E R B E C K , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Munich, 1956), vol. I V , pp. 1046, 1049. F o r M a n d a e a n references, cf. E . S T A U F F E R , Jesus and his Story ( E . T . , L o n d o n , 1959), P- 173) Cf. t h e so-called M e s s i a h - H a g g a d a h , cited b y E D E R S H E I M , op. cit., ibid. ) T a c i t u s , Histories, v . 1 3 ; Josephus, Jewish War, 6, 5, 4; Suetonius, Vespasian, 4. ) Der Stern der Weisen (Copenhagen, 1827). ) A s u m m a r y list of comets and n o v a e mentioned in Chinese records is g i v e n b y H S I - T S E - T U N G , ' A new C a t a l o g of A n c i e n t N o v a e ' , Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics, I I (1958), 114-29. F o r t h e a c c u r a c y of Chinese astronomical records, cf. W . B A A D E , Astrophysics Journal, X C V I I (1943), 126. ) T h e references in Chinese records are as follows: I n t h e 2nd y e a r of t h e Chien-P'ing reign period (B.C. 5) in t h e 2nd m o n t h there w a s a Hui-hsing (comet or nova) w h i c h appeared a t Ch'ien-Niu (apy Aquilae). (Chien Han Shu, X X V I > p , 34b) I n t h e 3rd year of t h e C h i e n - P ' i n g reign period (B.C. 4) in t h e 3rd m o n t h there w a s a po c o m e t (without a tail) in t h e Ho-Ku constellation (aPy Aqui­ lae). (Chien Han Shu, X I , p. 6b) K . L U N D M A R K , in ' T h e Messianic Ideas a n d their A s t r o n o m i c a l B a c k g r o u n d ' , Actes du Vile Congrbs d'Histoire des Sciences (Paris, 1953), 436 f., regards it as possible t h a t these Chinese references relate t o t h e S t a r of B e t h l e h e m . I a m indebted t o D r . J. N E E D H A M , F . R . S . , for these references. 1

2

8

4

6

•) T h e p a r t of t h e s k y near aPy A q u i l a e is visible from the latitude of P a ­ lestine a n d B a b y l o n i a for p a r t of e v e r y n i g h t e x c e p t for a period a t the end of J a n u a r y and beginning of F e b r u a r y , w h e n t h e sun is in t h a t region of the sky. I a m indebted t o D r . P . J. M E S S A G E for this information.

12 and B.C. 5 an unknown star or stars were visible in China and also in Babylonia or Palestine. It is possible that Babylonian astrologers, noting the conjunctions in B.C. 7, and moved by a prophecy of a coming world ruler in the East, possibly knowing the tradition that a star would appear two years before the birth of the Messiah, set out for Jerusalem. It is possible that, confirmed in their expectations by the appearance of a comet in B.C. 5 and guided by local infor­ mation, they may have found the infant Jesus in a house in Beth­ lehem ). Herod died in March B.C. 4, and Jesus, according to Matthew's story, must have been born before Herod's death. He may well have been born in B.C. 5 or early in B.C. 4 ). Whatever weight may be given to the hypothesis outlined above, it is noteworthy that Josephus recorded the appearance of a comet and a star over the city of Jerusalem and regarded it as a portent of its coming destruction. Can there be any possible connection between the two ? Could Josephus possibly have recorded a portent concerning the destruction of the Temple which originally had its context in the birth of Jesus ? It is probable that one of the main charges against Jesus that was remembered by Jews after his death was his prophecy of the coming destruction of the Temple ). Such a prophecy is implicit in the many passages in which Jesus speaks about the coming doom of the capital city ). And Jesus actually speaks of the coming destruction of the Temple itself ). Again, according to John, Jesus said to the Jews: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will x

2

3

4

5

x

) These directions, w h i c h seem so v a g u e to Western ears, m i g h t seem more feasible t o E a s t e r n peoples. Cf. the search for the present D a l a i L a m a , described b y H . H A R R E R , Seven Years in Tibet (London, 1953), p p . 267 f. For a star regarded as a p o r t e n t w h i c h gives direction, cf. Virgil, Aeneid, ii, 693 ff. T h e relationship b e t w e e n Virgil's sources and the gospel stories (with special reference to the 4th Eclogue) has been e x h a u s t i v e l y studied b y G. E R D M A N N , Die Vorgeschichten des Lukas- und Matthaeus-Evangeliums und Vergils vierte Ehloge (Gottingen, 1932). E R D M A N N does n o t t h i n k t h a t there is a n y direct connection. ) T h e usual objection to such an early d a t e is t h a t the census mentioned in L u k e ii 1 ff. could n o t h a v e t a k e n place before t h e d e a t h of Herod the Great. H o w e v e r E . S T A U F F E R (op. cit., p p . 35-8) has p u t forward convincing reasons w h i c h show t h a t the census could h a v e been t a k i n g place, as L u k e recounts it, from B . C . 8 onwards. ) Cf. C . F . D . M O U L E , ' S a n c t u a r y and Sacrifice in the Church of the N e w T e s t a m e n t ' , Journal of Theological Studies, N S . I (1950), p p . 29-41; A . C O L E , The New Temple (London, 1950), p p . 1-22. ) E . g . M a t t , xxiii 38; L u k e x i x 43 ff.; x x i 20. ) M k . xii 2; L u k e x x i 6. 2

8

4

8

13 x

raise it up" ). John adds that Jesus was referring to the 'temple of his body': but this is John's interpretation of the words, and the Jews did not understand them thus ). It seems that the bystanders at Jesus' crucifixion taunted him with this saying, or with similar words ). According to Mark, this prophesy formed one of the ac­ cusations against Jesus at his trial before the Sanhedrin ) ; 'nor, in spite of Mark's aspersions on the witnesses, is there any good reason to doubt the substantial authenticity of this saying' ). Furthermore, Stephen's adversaries accused him of saying that Jesus would destroy the Temple, and there is no good reason to doubt either that Stephen did say this, or that he was citing the words of Jesus himself ). During the period between the death of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the growing tension between Jews and Romans dominated the Palestinian situation. We know little enough about the attitude of the local Christian Churches towards this mounting pension, but it seems probable that Christians, with their hope on the 'temple not made with hands' ), took up a negative attitude towards the Jewish temple ). They certainly fled to Pella before its destruction ). In view of this probable attitude on the part of Jewish Christians, and in view of the remembered words of Jesus himself, it seems quite possible that events which originally concerned Jesus may have been remembered by Jews as directed against the Temple. Josephus' record is as follows ) : 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

T h u s it was t h a t the wretched people were deluded a t t h a t time b y char­ latans and pretended messengers of the deity, while t h e y neither heeded nor believed in the manifest portents w h i c h foretold the coming desolation, x

) J o h n ii 19. ) J o h n ii 20. ) M a t t , x x v i i 40; M a r k x v 29. ) M a r k x i v 58. ) C. H . D O D D , The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935), P- 73) A c t s v i 13 f. ) T h e contrast b e t w e e n xeipo7uotY)To? and dxeipo7rot7jTo<; seems t o belong to the tradition of the primitive church (Acts vii 48; x v i i 24; 2 Cor. v 1 ; H e b . ix 1 1 , 24; cf. M a r k x i v 58). ) A contrary v i e w is t a k e n b y S. G . F . B R A N D O N (The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London, 1951), p. 39), w i t h which the present writer cannot agree. W h i l e it is true t h a t the primitive church in Jerusalem still participated in T e m p l e worship (Luke x x i v 5 3 ; A c t s ii 46), this partici­ pation could n o t h a v e lasted for long, e x c e p t in a few cases. ) Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I l l , 5. ) Jewish War, 6, 5, 3. This translation is t a k e n from H . S t . J . T H A C K E R A Y , op. cit., p. 461. 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

14 b u t , as if thunderstruck and bereft of eyes and mind, disregarded the plain w a r n i n g of G o d . So it was w h e n a star, resembling a sword, stood over the city, and a c o m e t which continued for a whole year.

Josephus gives no indication of the date of these celestial pheno­ mena, beyond the statement that they took place before the Jewish rebellion. He does not state that they took place in the same year as the subsequent prodigies which he relates, nor does he record that these two heavenly portents took place at the same time. (Indeed, as WHISTLER notes it is not even clear whether he in­ tended to record one or two portents.) In view of the precise dating of the other prodigies which he relates, it is a reasonable assumption that these heavenly signs did not occur in the same year as the sub­ sequent wonders which he goes on to describe, but that they took place earlier. It is possible that Josephus is referring to the appear­ ance of one of the comets which Tacitus mentions as having been visible in Rome in A.D. 60 and A.D. 64 ). On the other hand, it is not impossible that Josephus was referring to the same celestial phenomena as Matthew mentions. There are some points of similar­ ity. Both Josephus and Matthew write of the star 'standing-over' a place ), although Josephus records that the star stood over Jerusa­ lem, while Matthew states that it stood over Bethlehem, a few miles distant. Both regard the star as sent by God. Any connection between the two stories must necessarily be speculative, and the evidence for such a connection is not strong when it stands on its own. It must be considered along with other portents which Josephus records and which Tacitus corroborates. 2

3

According to the Matthaean account, the appearance of the Bethlehem star is narrated in conjunction with the tale of the massacre of the Bethlehem children of two years and under. The historicity of the one is bound up with that of the other. Matthew regards this massacre as the fulfilment of a prophesy of Jeremiah ). However, his citation of Jeremiah at this point is not very apposite, and it is impossible to believe that such a pro­ phecy could have given rise to the tale. Some scholars, noting the analogy between the history of Israel and the life of Jesus in the first 4

x

) ) •) *) 8

The Works of Flavins Josephus (London, 1882), vol. I V , p. 216. Tacitus, Annals, X I V , 22; X V , 47. M a t t h e w ' s word is £OT<£87}, while Josephus* is &JTY). M a t t , ii 18, where Jer. x x x i 15 is cited.

15 two chapters of Matthew, regard the tale of the Massacre as a Christian midrash, the object of which is to show 'that the prophesy of Dt. xviii 15 was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus in whom the narrator saw a second and greater Moses' ). R. BLOCH has pointed out how, in the haggadic tradition, the birth of Moses is associated with the suffering and death of Israelite infants ). By the time of Josephus, the legend of the destruction of male children had been combined with an oracular prophesy of a coming birth ). While it may be conceded that this theme may have influenced Matthew's selection of material, it is extremely difficult to explain how it could have given rise to the story of the massacre itself. It is easier to explain the story on the presumption that it was based on an historical event. A massacre of this kind is in keeping with what is known from other sources about the behaviour and character of Herod the Great, especially in his last years, when he was suffering from advanced arterio-sclerosis and subject to murderous outbursts ). Josephus records that Herod instituted a police state, insisting that the people took an oath of allegiance to himself and punishing those who refused ). On one occasion he accused over three hundred of his officers and servants ). On another occasion some Pharisees had foretold how God had decreed that Herod's rule must cease, and that his posterity should be deprived of it; and the king put to death the principal men involved in the affair ). (It is not impossible that this incident is in some way connected with the Bethlehem massacre—it occurred towards the end of Herod's life—or that it reflects some similar occurrence.) In his last days, Herod issued an edict of extraordinary ferocity: 'he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust' ). It has been calculated that there would not have been more than about twenty young children of two years and under living in x

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

x

) G. H . B o x , The Virgin Birth (London, 1916), p. 2 1 . ) Op. cit. pp. 102-7. ) Antiquities, 2, 9, 2. *) Cf. S. P E R O W N E , The Life and Times of Herod the Great (London, 1956), pp. 185 f. A c c o r d i n g to Macrobius (Sat. 2, 4, 1 1 ) , the E m p e r o r A u g u s t u s said t h a t he would rather be Herod's swine t h a n his son. ) Antiquities, 1 5 , 10, 4. ) Op. cit., 16, 1 1 , 4. ) Op. cit., 1 7 , 2, 4. ) Op. cit., 17, 6, 6. 2

3

6

8

7

8

i6 x

Bethlehem ). It is quite in keeping with Herod's character that he should have had them murdered in order to eliminate a possible rival ). The fact that this massacre is not mentioned by Josephus has no bearing on its authenticity ). Josephus had bigger and better atrocity stories to record about Herod. In particular, the Massacre of the Innocents could hardly have been regarded as a sign of the coming destruction of the Temple. No one could have regarded it as a supernatural event, and in the passage of Josephus' Jewish War under consideration here the writer is concerned only with super­ natural prodigies. 2

3

2. The Rending of the Temple Veil. 4

5

6

According to Mark ), followed by Matt. ) and Luke ), the veil of the Temple was rent at the moment of Jesus' death. The Temple veil divided the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary ). The High Priest alone was permitted to enter through the veil, and that only once a year, on the Day of Atonement ) . If the temple veil really was rent, it is almost incredible that there should be no record in Jewish writings of such a calamitous event ). A catastrophe such as this could hardly have been hushed up. 7

8

9

x

)

Cf.

A.

EDERSHEIM,

op.

cit.,

p.

214.

2

) Cf. F - M . A B E L , Histoire de la Palestine depuis la conquete d'Alexandre jusqu'a Vinvasion arabe (Paris, 1952), vol. I, p. 400. A B E L cites t w o stories from R o m a n history w h i c h h a v e some similarities t o M a t t h e w ' s a c c o u n t of the Massacre of the Innocents: (i) shortly before the birth of A u g u s t u s , the R o m a n Senate, as the result of a public portent t h a t N a t u r e w a s preparing t h e m a king, a t t e m p t e d t o p r e v e n t for a whole year the nurture of all male infants (Suetonius, Augustus, 94); (ii) Nero, after the appearance of a comet, not only b r o u g h t t o trial those w h o m he accused of p l o t t i n g against his life, b u t also arranged the murder of all the children of t h e accused (Suetonius, Nero, 36). ) E . S T A U F F E R (op. cit., p. 43) makes the suggestion t h a t there is a refe­ rence t o the B e t h l e h e m atrocities in Ass. Moys. V I , 5. ) M a r k x v 38. ) Matt, xxvii 51. ) L u k e xxiii 44. ) Cf. E x o d . x x v i 3 1 - 3 . T h e E v a n g e l i s t s are referring t o t h e veil between the H o l y of H o l y and the H o l y Places rather t h a n the veil a t the entrance of the H o l y P l a c e ( E x o d . x x v i i 16). Cf. G . L U N D E S K O G , ' T h e V e i l of the Temple', Conjecteanea Neotestimentica X I (1948), p. 132. ) Cf. L e v . x v i 12. F o r R a b b i n i c traditions concerning the veil, cf. Mishnah, Yoma, v. 1 ff. F o r a miraculous story a b o u t the veil, cf. Git. 56b. ) T h e references in Test. Levi X , 3 and Test. Benj. I X , 4 are Christian interpolations. Cf. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ed.

R.

H.

CHARLES

(Oxford,

1913)

ad

loc.

17 Moreover, if the veil was rent, it is extraordinary that Christians did not make use of such a portent in their apologetic against Jews. What better argument could they have had to show the supersession of the temple 'made with hands' by the death of Jesus ? And yet, apart from the synoptic gospels, there is no explicit reference to such an event in the earliest extant Christian writings. In Mark the rending of the veil forms one of the great climaxes of the gospel. "And Jesus uttered a loud cry and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom". Mark uses the Greek word for 'rending' on only one other occasion in his gospel, and that is at the baptism of Jesus ). It is as though at the beginning of the gospel there is a breakthrough from God to men, and at the end of Jesus' ministry there is a breakthrough to God for men ). Paul seems to refer to the same concept when he writes: "Let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have had access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" ). The same idea is found in the Book of Revelation ) and also in the Epistle to the Hebrews where its author declares that his readers have 'boldness to enter into the holy place through the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is, his flesh" ). The same con­ ception also underlies the Johannine logion: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep" ). x

2

3

4

5

6

*) M a r k i 10. ) I t is possible t o interpret the rending of the temple veil as the mourning of t h e T e m p l e over its inevitable destruction; cf. Clem. R e c o g . i, 4: 'lamentans e x c i d i u m loco imminens'. T h i s is, however, h a r d l y the evangelist's interpretation, despite D . D A U B E , The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p p . 23 ff. Cf. R . H . L I G H T F O O T , History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London, i935)».P- 83 f. ) R o m . v 1 f.; cf. E p h . ii 18. I t would seem t h a t P a u l is here using a nautical metaphor. Cf. J. M O U L T O N and G . M I L L I G A N , The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1930), p. 545. ) R e v . x i - 1 9 ; x x i . 25, ) H e b . x 1 9 . T h e meaning of this verse is a crux interpretationis. Some scholars (e.g. J. M O F F A T T , T . H . R O B I N S O N ) regard the veil here as identified w i t h the flesh of Christ. Others (e.g. B . F . W E S T C O T T , C . S P I C Q ) identify the flesh of Christ not w i t h the veil itself b u t w i t h 'the new and living w a y t h r o u g h the veil'. T h e latter interpretation, despite the t e s t i m o n y of the early fathers, seems more probable. T h e veil did n o t g i v e access t o G o d : it hid G o d , and Jesus t h r o u g h his d e a t h has opened u p t h e w a y t o G o d . ) J o h n x 7. I t is probable t h a t this verse reflects Johannine v o c a b u l a r y rather t h a n verba Christi. Cf. J. A . T . R O B I N S O N , ' T h e P a r a b l e of John x 1-5', Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft X L V I (1955), 233-40; A . T . C A D O U X , The Parables of Jesus (London, 1931), p. 168 f. T h e F o u r t h a

8

4

6

6

i8 In view of the theological implications of the rending of the temple veil, and the lack of support for this incident outside the gospels, it seems probable that the story has assumed its present form under the pressure of theological factors. Either the tale is a "legendary addition, doctrinal in character" ), embodying in concrete form the truth that through the death of Jesus the road-block between man and God has been cleared, or the tale has developed into its present form out of some incident connected with the Temple. In view of the fact that in other sources there are accounts of an event not wholly dissimilar from the rending of the temple veil, the latter possibility is to be preferred. The Talmud contains the following account of a portent of the coming destruction of the Temple ). x

2

F o r t y years before the fall of the T e m p l e , the doors of the T e m p l e opened of their own accord, until R a b b i J o c h a n a n ben Z a k k a i ) rebuked them, saying: O Temple, T e m p l e , w h y troublest thou t h y s e l f ? I k n o w t h a t t h y end is near. Zechariah the son of I d d o has already prophesied concerning thee: 'Open t h y doors, O L e b a n o n , t h a t the fire m a y devour t h y cedars'. 8

The Temple fell in A.D. 70, so that this event may be dated in A.D. 30 ). It seems most probable that Jesus died in A.D. 30 ), so 4

5

E v a n g e l i s t is p r o b a b l y recasting into his own idiom the c o m m o n belief of the early C h u r c h t h a t Jesus b y his d e a t h has effected a breakthrough for m a n to G o d . *) V . T A Y L O R , The Gospel According to S. Mark (London, 1953), P- 59^> cf. C. H . D O D D , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 425, n. 1. ) j . Y o m a vi, 43c. ) J o c h a n a n ben Z a k k a i was a first c e n t u r y T a n n a , a pupil of Hillel, who, after the destruction of Jerusalem, became a leader of the Jewish c o m m u n i t y at J a b n e h (cf. W . B A C H E R , Johanan b. Zakkai', The Jewish Encyclopaedia (New Y o r k , 1904), vol V I I , p. 214 f.). ) S . V . M A C C A S L A N D (Portents in Josephus and the Gospels, Journal of Biblical Literature, L I (1932), p p . 322 f.) regarded the R a b b i n i c d a t i n g of this portent as later t h a n t h a t of Josephus and presumed t h a t Josephus d a t e d the prodigy in A . D . 66. U n f o r t u n a t e l y his statements were unsupported, and, so far as Josephus is concerned, uncorroborated b y the t e x t . ) M a n y factors m u s t be t a k e n into account in c o m p u t i n g t h e y e a r in w h i c h Jesus w a s crucified, v i z . , (i) the d a t e of the crucifixion as g i v e n b y Tertullian, Origen, Clement of A l e x a n d r i a and other early writers; (ii) t h e y e a r of Jesus' birth and his age w h e n he died; (hi) the year when his public ministry b e g a n and its duration; (iv) the period when Pontius Pilate w a s procurator of J u ­ daea; (v) the period w h e n C a i a p h a s w a s H i g h Priest; (vi) t h e d a t e of t h e completion of Herod's T e m p l e ; (vii) the earliest probable d a t e for a reconcilia­ tion between Pontius Pilate and Herod A n t i p a s ; (viii) the date of A r e t a s ' c a m p a i g n against A n t i p a s consequent on A n t i p a s ' divorce of his d a u g h t e r and subsequent marriage to Herodias; (ix) the latest date b y w h i c h Herodias' 2

3

4

5

19 that the event recorded in the Talmud may be dated to the very year in which Jesus died. It is possible, however, that the period of forty years mentioned in the Talmud excerpt is meant as a round number rather than as an exact record of time ), so that, if Jesus died within a few years of A.D. 30, the Talmudic excerpt may still refer to the year of his death. This incident is reported not only in the Talmud. There are refer­ ences to it both in the writings of Josephus and in those of Tacitus. It is most probable that all these authors wrote independently of one another. The Talmud did not attain its written form until long after Josephus wrote his Jewish War ). There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Talmudic version of the story ), but its form is so different from that of the other accounts that it must be held to be independent of them ). Further, there is no evidence that Tacitus used Josephus* Jewish War when he wrote his Histo­ ries ). Both were living and writing in Rome at the same time, x

2

3

4

5

daughter Salome could h a v e married P h i l i p the T e t r a r c h ; (x) the date of Paul's conversion, and the period b e t w e e n Jesus'crucifixion and Paul's conversion; (xi) the astronomical evidence a b o u t the possible years when N i s a n 14 or 15 could h a v e fallen on a F r i d a y . T h e m a t t e r is v e r y c o m p l e x and no c e r t a i n t y can be attained. T h e four dates which h a v e received most support are A . D . 29, 30, 33 and 36. A . D . 36 seems t o be t o o late t o be congruous w i t h m u c h of the gospel evidence. A . D . 29 receives no support from the latest astronomical computations. A . D . 33 is preferred b y G . O G G (The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cam­ bridge, 1940) p. 277), b u t this y e a r seems t o g i v e too late a date for the con­ version of P a u l (cf. J. J E R E M I A S , The Eucharistic Words of Jesus ( E . T . , Oxford, 1955) p. 12), and in the opinion of the present writer A . D . 30 is t o be preferred. *) F o r the biblical use of the number forty, cf. E . K O N I G , 'Number', Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1902), vol. I l l , p. 563 f. ) T h e Jerusalem T a l m u d w a s not edited until the third century A . D . Josephus wrote his Jewish War towards t h e end of Vespasian's reign ( A . D . 70-9). T h e Greek version w a s published c. A . D . 80. ) N o J e w would h a v e i n v e n t e d such a portent, nor would he h a v e in­ v e n t e d such words and a t t r i b u t e d t h e m t o Jochanan ben Z a k k a i . T h e pro­ phesy of Zech. x i 1 could n o t h a v e given rise to the tale. *) Neither Josephus nor T a c i t u s mention Jochanan ben Z a k k a i . ) Chapters I - X I I I of T a c i t u s ' fifth book of the Histories are concerned w i t h t h e Jewish people, leading u p t o the fall of Jerusalem in A . D . 70. " T h a t he w a s unacquainted b o t h w i t h the Old T e s t a m e n t and w i t h the w o r k of Josephus is obvious on the face of his narrative itself". (W. A . S P O O N E R , Histories of Tacitus (London, 1891) p. 22). I t m a y be noted t h a t in the passage of Josephus under consideration here, the portents recorded are listed in a different order from t h a t of T a c i t u s . T h i s seems t o m a k e it even more im­ probable t h a t one borrowed here from the other. E . N O R D E R N ('Josephus und T a c i t u s liber Jesus Christ und eine messianische Prophetie', Neue Jahr2

3

5

20 x

and no doubt they were acquainted with each other ). Yet Tacitus does not seem to have drawn on Josephus' material, although they may well have used common sources ). It may therefore be concluded that three independent nonChristian accounts relate that there took place in the Temple a strange event which was commonly regarded as a portent, and one of these sources most probably dates this event to the very year in which Jesus died. Furthermore, Josephus records that this event took place at the Passover ), so that it seems to be almost co­ incident with the death of Jesus. Tacitus merely writes with characteristic brevity: "Exapertae repente delubri fores" ) . Josephus has a more extended account ) ; 2

3

4

5

Moreover, the eastern g a t e of the inner court — it was of brass and v e r y massive, and, w h e n closed towards evening, could scarcely be m o v e d b y t w e n t y m e n ; fastened w i t h ironbound bars, it had bolts w h i c h were sunk t o a great d e p t h into a threshold consisting of a solid block of stone — this g a t e w a s observed a t the sixth hour of the n i g h t t o h a v e opened of its own accord. The w a t c h m e n of the temple ran and reported the m a t t e r t o the captain, and he c a m e u p and w i t h difficulty succeeded in s h u t t i n g it. T h i s again t o the uninitiated seemed the best of omens, as t h e y supposed t h a t G o d h a d opened t o t h e m the g a t e of blessings; b u t the learned understood t h a t the security of the temple was dissolving of its own accord and t h a t t h e opening bilcher fiir das Klassische Altertum X X I (1913), p. 655) notes against H A R N A C K and S C H U R E R (both of w h o m t h o u g h t t h a t T a c i t u s is dependent upon Jose­ phus) t h a t T a c i t u s places the portents in the right place (not, like Josephus, after a description of the W a r ) , and, secondly, t h a t T a c i t u s ' a c c o u n t is m u c h more compressed t h a n t h a t of Josephus. *) Josephus lived in R o m e from c. A . D . 70 until he died (c. A . D . 100). T a c i t u s seems t o h a v e lived in R o m e from his birth (c. A . D . 55) until his d e a t h (c. A . D . 120), a p a r t from an absence from the c a p i t a l between c. A . D . 89-93. ) M . F R I E D L A E N D E R ('Les prophecies sur la guerre judeo-romaine, Rev. des itudes juives X X X (1895), p p . 122-4) held t h a t b o t h T a c i t u s and Josephus drew on the Sybilline Oracles. E . N O R D E R N agreed (op. cit., p. 658). A . M . A . H O S P E R S - J A N S E N (Tacitus over de Joden (Groningen, 1949)) gives a s u m m a r y of views held in the past c e n t u r y a b o u t T a c i t u s ' sources, t o w h i c h should be added R . S Y M E , Tacitus (Oxford, 1958). I t seems probable t h a t b o t h T a c i t u s and Josephus used the imperial commentaries (cf. A . M . A . H O S P E R S - J A N S E N , 2

op.

cit., 3

pp.

159 f.;

E . N O R D E R N , op.

cit.,

pp.

652

ff.).

) A l t h o u g h the Passover is not explicitly mentioned in connection w i t h t h e opening of the t e m p l e doors, the c o n t e x t makes it quite clear t h a t this portent, together w i t h t w o others, occurred a t the Passover. ) Histories, v . 1 3 . Similar portents can be found in R o m a n history, e.g., Julius Obsequens, Liber prodigiorum, 13 (72); 67 (127); Suetonius, Julius, L X X X I ; Nero, X L V I ; D i o Cassius, L X , 35, 1 ; L X V I I I , 26, 2; L X V , 8, 2; L X V I , 1 7 , 2. ) Jewish War, 6, 5, 3. T h e translation is from H . S t . J . T H A C K E R A Y , op. cit. 4

5

21 of the g a t e m e a n t a present t o the enemy, interpreting the portent as indi­ c a t i v e of c o m i n g desolation.

There is no good reason to doubt that Josephus* account, with its precise details and its setting in the Passover season, is based upon a real historical event. Might not this event be the source of the gospel story of the rending of the temple veil ? May there not be a connection in thought between the belief of the uninitiated—the common people—that this portent meant that 'God had opened to them the gate of blessings' and the Christian conviction that through the death of Jesus the way to God had been opened up? The portent in the Temple as Josephus describes it would not have been quite so calamitous for Jews as the rending of the temple veil would have been. It would not have been so invaluable for Christian apologetic. On the other hand, some record of this event might be expected to have survived in Talmudic writings and in the work of a Jewish historian. Some reconstruction of the event itself and the development of tradition about it is possible, although necessarily it must remain hypothetical. Matt, records that there was an earthquake in Jeru­ salem at the time of Jesus' death. "And behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints were raised" While Matt, undoubtedly adds some apocalyptic details to his Marcan source in his account of Jesus' death and resurrection, yet he is careful not to associate this earthquake with paranormal phenomena, for he records that„ it was not until the resurrection itself that many bodies of the saints came forth from the tombs and entered into the Holy City and appeared unto many ). Mark, although he does not record an earthquake, does allude to atmospheric disturbances at about this time ). Luke, alone among the evangelists, directly connects the darkness with the rending of the temple veil ). In view of this evidence it may be held that an earthquake, ac­ companied by a thunderstorm and unnatural darkness ) took place 2

3

4

6

*) M a t t , x x v i i 5 1 . ) Cf. R . H . L I G H T F O O T , Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels, (London, 1938), p. 68. ) M a t t , x x v i i 52. ) L u k e x x i i i 44 f. ) T h e darkness is strongly emphasised in the apocryphal Gospel of P e t e r 5 (15). I t is attested also b y p a g a n writers; b y T h a l l u s and b y Phlegon (for 2

3

4

6

22 during the afternoon of the day on which Jesus was crucified. The earthquake could have dislodged some of the stones which secured the tombs outside the city walls. It could also have disturbed some of the temple buildings with the result that, during the night, the east door of the temple was affected. Tacitus had heard about this, and it was included among his list of portents about the Temple. The author of the Gospel to the Hebrews had heard of a somewhat similar tradition, for, according to Jerome ), it is recorded in that gospel that a lintel of the Temple, of immense size, was broken and fell. The canonical evangelists—or perhaps the traditions which they represent—record a more developed tradition about a rending of the temple veil, under the influence of the theological factors out­ lined above. If such a hypothetical reconstruction be accepted, then a real connection may be seen between the different accounts in the synoptic gospels, the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Jerusalem Talmud, Josephus' Jewish War and Tacitus' Histories. All may record the same event in different forms and under the influence of different traditions. The case for such a connection does not rest upon this reconstruction alone. It is strengthened by further correspondences between the New Testament records and the other portents recorded by Josephus and Tacitus. 1

3. The Cleansing of the Temple. It is not easy to calculate the exact date when Jesus cleansed the Temple at Jerusalem. The Fourth Gospel, probably influenced by theological factors ), places the cleansing at the beginning and 2

texts, cf. F . J A C O B Y , op. cit. supra, ibid.). Phlegon dates this in O l . 202. 4 ( A . D . 32-3) b u t his reference t o 'the sixth hour' when darkness fell makes it probable t h a t he is drawing on Christian sources, and his d a t i n g m a y well reflect the source of his tradition. ) I n M a t t , x x v i i 5 1 ; cf. E p p . x v i i i 9; c x x 8. A c c o r d i n g t o Jerome, the Gospel t o t h e Hebrews read a t this point: 'superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum'. M. R . J A M E S has suggested t h a t this c h a n g e in the account has been made under the influence of Isa. v i 4, 'the posts of t h e door m o v e d a t the voice of him t h a t cried* (The Apocryphal New Testament, (Oxford, 1924), p. 5), and N E S T L E (Expositor, V , vol. I I (1895), 310 ff.) has suggested the possible H e b r e w word which Jerome translated b y 'superliminare'. If however the Gospel t o the Hebrews has really been influenced b y an Isaianic testimonium, it is hard to understand w h y its version of the tale is not more like those of Josephus and T a c i t u s . ) Cf. C. H . D O D D , The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 300 ff.; H . W . M O N T E F I O R E , ' T h e position of the C a n a Miracle and the Cleansing of the Temple', Journal of Theological Studies, O . S . L (1949), 183-6. x

2

23 x

not at the end of the ministry ). The Synoptic Gospels, although they are most probably correct in placing the cleansing at the end of the ministry, differ about the day of the week on which this took place. Moreover the matter is further complicated by the divergence between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel over the day of the month on which Jesus was crucified. The latter problem, however, may perhaps have been resolved by a recent hypothesis ) which, although it has not yet been subjected to the searching criticism which it deserves ), yet seems, to one writer at least, to give a satisfactory explanation of the chro­ nological differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel over the date of Jesus' death. It has been suggested that, during the New Testament period, there were two different calendars in use among the Jews. One was the official calendar, based on a lunar-solar year, which was used by the temple authorities and which eventually superseded the other calendar. According to this reckoning Passover always fell on the evening of 14/15 Nisan, as the Mosaic law directs ), but, dependent on the state of the moon, it might fall each year on a different day of the week. In the particular year in which Jesus died, 2

3

4

*) T . W . M A N S O N argued t h a t Jesus cleansed the T e m p l e a t the feast of Tabernacles, some six months before his death (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 33 (1951), 171-82). His argument is based on (i) the proper inter­ pretation of Mark x 1 ; (ii) the time of year when a fig-tree in Palestine m a y be expected t o h a v e leaves b u t no fruit; (iii) the c u t t i n g down of branches recorded in Mark xi 8; (iv) the chronology of the F o u r t h Gospel. N o n e of his arguments is conclusive, and their c u m u l a t i v e force is not so strong as the probability t h a t Jesus' cleansing of the T e m p l e led directly to his death. ) T h e details of this hypothesis, can be found in the following works b y A . J A U B E R T , ' L e calendrier des Jubil6s et de la secte de Q u m r a n . Ses origines bibliques.' Vetus Testamentum I I I (1953), p p . 250-64; ' L a date de laderniere Cene', Revue de I'Histoire et de la Religion C X L V I (1954), pp. 140-73; 'Le calendrier des Jubiles et les jours liturgiques de la semaine', Vetus Testa­ mentum V I I (1957), PP- 3 5 - 6 1 ; La Date de la Chne (Paris, 1957). Jesus et le calendrier de Q u m r a n , New Testament Studies V I I (i960), pp. 1-30. Cf. also E . V O G T , ' A n t i q u u m K a l e n d a r i u m Sacerdotale', Biblica XXXVI ( 955)> PP- 403-8;-'Dies ultimae Coenae Domini', ibid., pp. 408-13. ) Cf. J. B L I N Z L E R , ' Q u m r a n - K a l e n d e r und Passionschronologie', Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft X L I X (1958), p p . 238-51; M. B L A C K , ' T h e Arrest and Triahof Jesus', New Testament Studies ed. A . J. B . H I G G I N S (Manchester, 1959), p p . 19-33; B . G A R T N E R , 'John 6 and the Jewish Passover', Conjectanea Neutestamentica X V I I (1959), pp. 43 ff. J. A . W A L T H E R , ' T h e Chronology of Passion Week', Journal of Biblical Literature, L X X V I I (1958), p p . 116-22, includes an useful bibliography; cf. also New Testament Abstracts I V (i960), pp. 285 ff. ) E x o d . xii 8; L e v , xxiii 5; N u m . ix 3, x x v i i i 16. 2

T

3

4

24 Passover would have fallen on a Friday evening, as the Fourth Gospel records ); so that Jesus' body would have been removed from the Cross before the festival began at sunset. But there was also another calendar observed by some Jews, older in origin than the official calendar and connected with the priestly tradition in the Old Testament. According to this older reckoning, the calendar was so arranged that the first day of each month (and therefore the Great Festivals) fell each year on the same day of the week. Passover was celebrated on 15 Nisan, as the Mosaic law directs, but according to this older calendar this festival always fell on a Tuesday evening. It has been suggested that this older calendar was observed by the Qumran covenanters and that it can be detected in some intertestamental literature. It has been further surmised that Jesus himself observed this older calendar. According to this hypothesis, the Last Supper was indeed a Pass­ over meal, celebrated on Tuesday in Holy Week. According to the old calendar, this was Tuesday 14/15 Nisan, but according to the official calendar it was Tuesday n / 1 2 Nisan. According to this theory, the Fourth Gospel is correct in recording that Jesus died on the day of the Passover (Friday 14/15 Nisan, official calendar), while the Synoptic Gospels are also correct in recording that the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Tuesday 14/15 Nisan, old calendar). In the following attempt to date the cleansing of the Temple this hypothesis will be used, and any dates mentioned will refer to the Jews' official calendar, unless otherwise stated. The date of the cleansing of the Temple must be approached by reference to the date of Jesus' arrival in Bethany, since this is the way in which the Synoptic Gospels refer to it. But it is John who dates Jesus' arrival in Bethany, 'six days before the Passover' ). It would seem that this simple statement could easily be translated into the corresponding day of the month Nisan, but in fact there is considerable disagreement among commentators about its proper interpretation. We shall assume that John, by referring here to the Passover, intends his readers to regard Friday 14 Nisan as the day of the Passover (although the feast did not actually start until after sunset on that day, which by that time had technically become x

2

x

2

) J o h n x i x 14, 3 1 . ) John xii 1.

25 Friday 15 Nisan). 'Six days before the Passover' would then refer to Saturday 8 Nisan ). According to Matt. ) and Luke ), Jesus cleansed the Temple on the same day as that on which he arrived at Bethany, while according to Mark this event took place on the following day ) . Since the Markan account is probably the source of the other two synoptic accounts ), and since Mark's date seems intrinsically more probable ), it will be assumed that Jesus cleansed the Temple on Sunday 9 Nisan ). 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

x

)

T h i s is t h e

view

of

LOISY,

WESTCOTT,

BERNARD,

HOSKYNS,

DAVEY,

V O G T . (Unless Jesus disregarded t h e Jewish law about s a b b a t h journeys, it m u s t be presumed t h a t he w a s lodging close t o B e t h a n y on the night of F r i d a y 7 Nisan, and t h a t he made a short journey to B e t h a n y on the Sabbath.) Other interpretations of 'six d a y s before t h e Passover' are possible: (i) Sunday 9 Nisan. This presupposes t h a t the F o u r t h E v a n g e l i s t regarded Saturday 15 Nisan as t h e d a y of t h e Passover. This seems improbable. This date does, however, seem t o reconcile John's date of the anointing in B e t h a n y w i t h t h a t of M a r k and M a t t . A c c o r d i n g t o John xii 2 ff. this occurred on t h e evening of Jesus' arrival a t B e t h a n y , i.e. S u n d a y 9/10 Nisan. According t o M a r k x i v 1 a n d M a t t , x x v i 2, this incident m a y be dated 'two d a y s before the Passover' (old calendar), t h a t is, t w o d a y s before T u e s d a y 1 1 / 1 2 Nisan, i.e., S u n d a y 9/10 Nisan. However, neither Mark nor M a t t , explicitly state t h a t t h e anointing took place t w o d a y s before the Passover: t h e y introduce this date in connection w i t h the authorities' plot t o h a v e Jesus killed, (ii) Monday 10 Nisan. This is t h e v i e w of B A C O N , S C H M I E D E L , M A C A R T H U R , M A G R E G O R . D a t e s were often calculated b y the Jews b y including b o t h t h e first and the last dates of a period. I t has been suggested b y some who hold this date t h a t John intended t h e incident of the anointing in B e t h a n y t o be regarded as the a n t i t y p e of the selection of the Passover L a m b in accordance w i t h E x o d . xii 3 (cf. B . W . B A C O N , 'After S i x D a y s ' , Harvard Theological Review, V I I I (1915), i o i f f . ; A . A . M A C A R T H U R , The Evolution of the Christian Year (London, 1953), PP- 84 f.). This t y p o l o g y seems rather far­ fetched: it is certainly n o t emphasised b y the Evangelist. 2

) M a t t , x x i 12. ) L u k e xix"45. ) Mark x i 12, 1 5 . ) M a t t , is plainly dependent on Mark for his narrative of t h e L a s t W e e k . L u k e ' s narrative is based here also on Mark (cf. V I N C E N T T A Y L O R , Behind the Third Gospel (Oxford, 1926), p p . 95 i ) , b u t his notes of time during the L a s t W e e k are noticeably and perhaps intentionally v a g u e (cf. R . H . L I G H T F O O T , Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London, 1938), p. 141). ) If Jesus had supper w i t h M a r t h a and M a r y on the evening of his arrival in B e t h a n y , it is improbable t h a t he also went into the capital t h a t d a y as Mark states. F o r if he arrived in B e t h a n y on t h e S a t u r d a y , he would h a v e broken the S a b b a t h law b y a further journey into the capital. If Jesus h a d cleansed the T e m p l e on the S a b b a t h , it is strange t h a t no reference to the S a b b a t h remains in the narratives. ) I t is held b y some t h a t a n y a t t e m p t t o find t h e precise date of such an e v e n t is impossible from t h e gospel records, as the narratives h a v e been 3

4

6

6

7

26 The Fourth Gospel, as already noted, places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. It is however note­ worthy that John does record Jesus' visit to the Temple on the same day as we have calculated that, according to Mark, he cleansed it. As we have noted, Jesus arrived at Bethany according to John six days before the Passover, i.e. Saturday 8 Nisan. John further records that on the next day (Sunday 9 Nisan) Jesus was teaching in the Temple and drawing great crowds to hear him ). The Fourth Gospel gives the substance of Jesus' words to the crowds: "Walk while ye have the light, that darkness overtake you not; and he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become children of light" ). Jesus is then reported to have hidden himself, and a few verses later, after the Evangelist has cited a testimonium from Isaiah, Jesus' speech is continued on the same theme without any indication of a difference of time: "I have come a light into the world that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness" ). Thus on the very day that, according to Mark, Jesus cleansed the Temple, he also claims, according to John, to be the true light ). Is there any connection between the Synoptic Gospels' account of the cleansing of the Temple and the Fourth Gospel's record of Jesus' speech in the Temple? The Gospel to the Hebrews might seem to provide a link. According to Jerome ), it is recorded in that gospel that, when Jesus cleansed the Temple, 'a certain fiery and starry light issued from his eyes'. In the Aurora Manuscript ) there appears the gloss: 'At the cleansing of the Temple: in the x

2

3

4

5

6

a d a p t e d to liturgical needs in the churches whence t h e y emanated, or be­ cause the evangelists, being uninterested in historical a c c u r a c y of this kind, p u t together their material w i t h o u t knowledge a b o u t or concern for chrono­ logy. T h e present writer, however, believes t h a t it is not impossible to recover the dates of some of the gospel events. *) J o h n xii 12, 18, 29, 34. ) J o h n xii 35 f. ) J o h n xii 46. ) T h e present writer does not regard the F o u r t h Gospel as lacking in details w h i c h are historically accurate, and even if the F o u r t h E v a n g e l i s t has here selected his material t o fit in w i t h the master-plan of his gospel (cf. C . H . D O D D , op. cit., p. 368-83), this does not necessarily i m p l y t h a t these words of Jeses are not here placed in their true historical c o n t e x t . ) In M a t t , x x i 12. Cf. E . H E N N E C K E , Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, ed. W . W . S C H N E E M E L C H E R , (Tiibingen, 1959). vol. I, p. 97. ) Petri de R i g a Aurora, F i t z w i l l i a m M u s e u m (McLean Collection) Ms. 3 1 , f. 1 6 1 b . Cf. M. R. J A M E S , 'Notes on A p o c r y p h a ' , Journal of Theological Studies, O . S . V I I (1901), 564 ff. 2

3

4

5

6

27 books of the Gospels which the Nazarenes use it is read that rays issued from his eyes whereby they were terrified and put to flight'. Both Tacitus and Josephus, in their lists of portents presaging the Temple's destruction, mention a supernatural light in the Temple. Tacitus writes: 'subito nubium igne conlucere templum' *). Josephus, immediately after his reference to the star and the comet standing over the city, and immediately before his account of the temple door opening of its own accord, has the following passage: So again, when, before the revolt and the c o m m o t i o n t h a t led t o war, a t the time w h e n t h e people were assembling for the feast of unleavened bread, on the e i g h t h of the m o n t h X a n t h i c u s , a t the ninth hour of the night, so brilliant a light shone round the altar and the s a n c t u a r y t h a t it seemed t o b e broad d a y l i g h t ; and this continued for half an hour. B y the inexperienced this w a s regarded as a good omen, b u t b y the sacred scribes it was a t once interpreted w i t h after e v e n t s ) . 2

Josephus here uses the month Xanthicus as the equivalent of Nisan ). It will be seen that he records a portent of light in the 3

x

) Histories, V , 1 3 . Similar portents can be found in R o m a n history, (cf. Julius Obsequens, Liber Prodigiorum, 38 (98), 44 (104), 70 (130)); P l i n y , Nat. Hist. 11, 1 7 ; Suetonius, Augustus, X C I V , 5. ) Jewish War, 6, 5, 3. T h e translation is t a k e n from H . St. J. T H A C K E R A Y , op. cit. 2

8

) X a n t h i c u s is the name of a m o n t h in the Macedonian and T y r i a n calendars w h i c h corresponded roughly t o the Julian m o n t h Aprilis, and w i t h the Jewish m o n t h Nisan. T h e r e is general agreement t h a t in his Antiquities Josephus used X a n t h i c u s t o signify Nisan. There is less agreement over his usage in the Jewish War. I t used t o be held t h a t he followed strictly the Julian calendar (J. S C A L I G E R , Opus de Emendatione temporum, i. (1629); U S H E R , Annates Vet. et Novi Test., ii. (1654)). More recent scholarship has concluded t h a t as in Antiquities Josephus in his Jewish War followed the Jewish calendar (H. C L I N T O N , Fasti Hellenici, iii. A p p . iv (Oxford, 1895); I D E L E R , Handbuch der Chronologie, i. (400-2). O . S. H O F F M A N , however, believed t h a t , a p a r t from a few Jewish dates, Josephus followed the Julian (solar) calendar (De imp. Titi temp, recte definiendis (1883), p p . 4ff.); while B . N I E S E contended t h a t , a p a r t from these few Jewish dates, the T y r i a n calendar was used ('Zur Chronologie des Josephus', Hermes X X V I I I (1893), 197-208), and he w a s followed here b y E . S C H W A R Z ('Christliche und jiidische Ostertafeln', Abhand. d. K. Ges. Wissen. z. Gottingen, V I I (1905), 138-69). S . Z E I T L I N ('Megillat T a a n i t and Jewish History', / . Q. R., N . S . X . (1919-20), 68ff.) held t h a t the dates of M e g . T a a n i t can only be made t o agree w i t h those of Josephus on the assumption t h a t the T y r i a n calendar was used t h r o u g h o u t the Jewish War. B u t the passage under discussion is not mentioned in M e g . T a a n i t , and it is e x t r e m e l y improbable t h a t Josephus would h a v e used the Julian or T y r i a n calendars t o date these events w h i c h t o o k place in J u d e a before the Jewish w a r began and of w h i c h e x a c t details of d a t i n g would h a v e been remembered only in Jewish circles.

28 Temple within a day of or (if Nicephorus' reading of 9 Xanthicus be accepted), on the very same day as Jesus' cleansing of the Temple and his speech about light. Although it is not possible to discover any direct connection between Josephus and the gospels here, it would seem possible that there is a connection of some kind. 4. The Resurrection. The canonical gospels do not describe the resurrection of Jesus ), but they do record the Empty Tomb and the appearances of the risen Lord. These are unnoticed in the non-Christian literature of the time. Josephus, in the passage under consideration here, has no portent which could be said to correspond to the resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, it is hard to see how he could have included such a portent of the coming destruction of the Temple unless he was re­ cording it as a Christian miracle ). Josephus does however describe in this passage a prodigy which is said to have happened within a day or two of the resurrection of Jesus ) (on the assumption that Josephus' portents took place in the year of Jesus' death): 1

2

3

A t the same feast a cow t h a t h a d been b r o u g h t b y someone for sacrifice g a v e birth t o a l a m b in the midst of the court of the T e m p l e ) . 4

5

While unnatural births can be paralleled in Roman writers ), Josephus' story is clearly fantastic. If there is any connection *) T h e earliest description of Jesus' resurrection is t o be found in the a p o c r y p h a l Gospel of Peter, I X - X (35-42). ) Jesus' resurrection was certainly connected in Christian tradition w i t h the destruction of the T e m p l e (cf. John ii 19). ) T h e resurrection of Jesus took place on S u n d a y 16 Nisan, the d a y after the Passover, t h a t is, the d a y on which the first-fruits were offered in the T e m p l e . Cf. B . B U C H A N A N G R A Y , Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford 1925). PP- 323-36) Jewish War, 6, 5, 3. Translation from H . St. J. T H A C K E R A Y , op. cit. Offerings of a heifer could be made on a n y of the d a y s of Unleavened Bread (cf. Mishnah, Hagigah, I, 4-6). A c c o r d i n g t o a sixth century Syriac manuscript of the sixth chapter of the Jewish War, Josephus wrote t h a t this prodigy took place not 'at the same feast' b u t 'on the same night'. H . K O T T E K not v e r y convincingly suggested t h a t the change t o 'feast' was m a d e because sacrifices could not t a k e place a t night (Das sechste Bitch des Bellum Judaicum nach der von Ceriani photolithographisch edition Peschitta Handschrift ubersetzt und Kritisch bearbeitet von H. Kottek (Berlin, 1886), p. 1 1 ) . ) Cf. Julius Obsequens, Liber Prodigiorum, 57 (118); T a c i t u s , Hist., I, 86; D i o Cassius, X I V , 1, 3 ; L i v y , Hist., X X I I I , 3 1 ; Pliny, Nat. Hist., V I I , 3 ; Herodotus, Hist., V I I , 57. 2

3

4

6

29 between this prodigy and the resurrection of Jesus, it may be assumed that this portent has been substituted for the Christian miracle. Josephus' tale could not have 'developed' from the Chris­ tian account of the Empty Tomb and the resurrection appear­ ances *). Tacitus does not mention it. It is conceivable that this story of an unnatural birth in the temple courts was put about by the Jews in an attempt to suppress or to discredit the Christian witness to the resurrection of Jesus, and that Josephus, in good faith, included it in his list of portents of the coming destruction of the Temple. 5. The Ascension. 2

Of the two accounts ) in the New Testament of Jesus' ascension into the heavens, the story in the Acts of the Apostles is the more detailed. While Luke in his Gospel seems to place the ascension of Jesus on Easter Day itself ), according to the Acts of the Apostles this takes place forty days after Jesus' resurrection ). The accuracy of the account in Acts has been doubted on many grounds. Some have held that there was no 'event' of the ascension at. all, and that the New Testament accounts of Jesus' ascension give legendary expression to Christian experience and to Christian conviction that Jesus is Lord and that he 'sits at the right hand of the Father' ). It has been pointed out that according to primitive Christian tradition, the ascension of Jesus may not have been regarded as an event distinct from his resurrection ), and that there is no adequate ground for questioning our acceptance of the tradi­ tion that Easter day was the occasion of the ascension ). It has 3

4

5

6

7

x

) A Christian Philo m i g h t perhaps h a v e said t h a t the heifer represents the sacrifices of the Old Dispensation, while the birth of a l a m b from the heifer represents its supersession b y H i m who is the L a m b of G o d ! ) L u k e x x i v 50-2; A c t s i 6 - 1 1 . ) I t seems t h a t all the events recorded in L u k e x x i v t a k e place on Easter D a y , although L u k e ' s language is v a g u e . T h e t w o stories, apart from this, do not contradict each other: the account in A c t s is an extended version of the gospel record w i t h a different theological meaning (cf. P. A . V A N S T E M P V O O R T , 'Ascension in L u k e and Acts', New Testament Studies, V (1958), 42). ) A c t s i 3f. ) Cf. R . B U L T M A N N , 'New T e s t a m e n t and M y t h o l o g y ' , Kerygma and Myth, ed. H . B A R T S C H ( E . T . , L o n d o n , 1953), pp. 10 ff.; P. T I L L I C H , Systematic Theology, vol. I I (London, 1957), PP) Cf. A . M . R A M S E Y , ' W h a t was the Ascension ?', Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Bulletin I I (1951), 50. ) Cf. J. G. D A V I E S , He Ascended into Heaven (London, 1958), p. 55. 2

3

4

5

1

6

7

8

6

f

30 been maintained that the Acts account has been influenced by Old Testament types ). In the opinion of the present writer none of these arguments are sufficient to discount the probability that the risen Jesus mysteriously appeared to his disciples some ten days before Pentecost and still more mysteriously vanished from their sight in the clouds ). The date of this event can be calculated more precisely. Jesus was put to death on Friday 14 Nisan. He rose from the dead on Sunday 16 Nisan. The month Nisan lasted for thirty days and was succeeded by the month Jyar. Forty days after the resurrection of Jesus brings the reckoning to 26 Jyar, or, if the first and last days of the period are both included in the reckoning, to 25 Jyar. Luke may have used 'forty days' as a round number: he may have meant a period of about forty days. In this case three or four days before or after 26 Jyar (or 25 Jyar) would give the date of Jesus' ascension. Tacitus, in his catalogue of portents, writes: Visae per caelum concurrere acies, rutilantia arma ). Josephus, in his list of pro­ digies, writes at greater length: x

2

3

A g a i n , n o t m a n y d a y s after t h e festival, on the t w e n t y first of t h e m o n t h Artemisium, there appeared a miraculous phenomenon, passing belief. Indeed, w h a t I a m a b o u t t o relate would, I imagine, h a v e been deemed a fable, were it not for t h e narratives of eyewitnesses and for t h e subsequent calamities w h i c h deserved to be so signalised. F o r before sunset t h r o u g h o u t all parts of the c o u n t r y chariots were seen in the air and armed battalions hurtling through the clouds and encompassing cities ) . 4

*) Cf. J. G . D A V I E S , op. cit., p. 53, where A c t s i 6-11 is compared w i t h 1 K i n g s x i x 8 ( L X X ) . O n the other h a n d P . M E N O U D has argued t h a t 'forty d a y s ' should be excised from t h e original t e x t of A c t s ('Remarques sur les t e x t e s de 1'Ascension dans L u c - A c t e s ' , Neutestamentliche Studien fur Bultmann (Berlin, 1954), P- 148 ff.; b u t his a r g u m e n t has m e t w i t h opposition (cf. C. F . D . M O U L E , 'The Ascension - A c t s i 9', Expository Times, LXVIII (1957), 206). ) I t is n o t denied t h a t there is a measure of theological interpretation in the story (cf. F . F . B R U C E , The Book of The Acts (London, 1954). p. 41) b u t this does not mean t h a t the disciples did not actually see Jesus ascending. E v e n if w i t h J. G. D A V I E S 'we m a y feel bound t o maintain a reverent agnosti­ cism as t o the e x a c t historical circumstances of the e v e n t ' (op. cit., p. 58), t h e explanation p u t forward b y M . C. P E R R Y (The Easter Enigma (London, 1959) p p . 195, 213) has m u c h t o c o m m e n d it. B u t it is h a r d l y possible t o return t o the confident assurance of W . M I L L I G A N : ' A n y difficulties connected w i t h the evidence m a y be ascribed t o our imperfect knowledge of the cir­ cumstances; and the reality of the f a c t itself m a y be accepted w i t h o u t hesitation' (The Ascension of our Lord (London, 1901), p. 13). ) Histories, V , 13. ) Jewish War, 6, 5, 3. Translation from H . St. J. T H A C K E R A Y , op. cit. 2

3

4

3i Josephus places this portent in the same year as the previous three portents in his list, and we may assume that his date of 21 Artemisium is equivalent to 21 Jyar ). Thus it seems to have taken place within a few days of the date of Jesus' ascension in the heavens according to the Acts of the Apostles. There are some points of similarity between the two tales. The Book of Acts records a figure disappearing into the clouds outside a city: Josephus records figures in the clouds around the cities of Judaea. Josephus' account of chariots and fighting has no counterpart in the Acts account, but it may be noted that, in the biblical account of Elijah's ascension (which may have influenced the Christian tradition of Jesus' ascension), this event is expressly connected with chariots and warfare ). In view of similarities of date and content, it is possible that there is some connection between the portents recorded by Tacitus and Josephus and the Acts' account of Jesus' ascension. If this is so, it may be assumed that Josephus' and Tacitus' portents have been altered so as to suppress all mention of Jesus and to form a type of prodigy which can be paralleled elsewhere ). 1

2

3

6. Pentecost. According to the Acts of the Apostles, when the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples of Jesus at the festival of Pentecost a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixion, certain remarkable phenomena

*) T h e S p a r t a n and Macedonian m o n t h Artemisius corresponded r o u g h l y t o the A t t i c m o n t h E l a p h e b o l i u m . I t w a s used also in the T y r i a n calendar, and it fell a t roughly the same season as the Julian m o n t h Maius and the Jewish m o n t h J y a r . Antiquities.

Josephus used the m o n t h Artemisius twice in his

O n one occasion it plainly refers t o the Greek calendar in use a t

E p h e s u s (Ant.

14.10, 25);

and on the other occasion Josephus e x p l i c i t l y

s t a t e d t h a t he w a s using the word as an equivalent of the Jewish m o n t h J y a r (Ant. 8.3, 1). I n t h e Jewish War the word is used six times.

In the passage

under discussion there is no reason t o suppose t h a t Josephus did not intend to signify b y its use the corresponding Jewish month, j u s t as, in the same passage he used X a n t h i c u s t o designate the preceding Jewish m o n t h N i s a n (see note ad.

loc). 2

) 2 K i n g s ii u f . ) Cf. 2 Mace, v 2-4; Julius Obsequens, Liber Prodigiorum, 1 7 (76); 41 (101); 43 (103). P l i n y , Nat. Hist., I I , 57. In Sibylline Books, I I I , 796-808 this portent is t h e sign of the consummation of all things. 3

32 x

occurred ). There was the sound of a gale, the appearance of fire and men speaking strangely ). Tacitus, among his list of portents includes the following: 'et audita maior humana vox, excedere deos; simul ingens motus excedentium' ). Josephus has a longer version of the same portent: 2

3

Moreover, a t the feast w h i c h is called Pentecost, the priests on entering the inner court of the T e m p l e b y night, as their custom was, in the discharge of their ministrations, reported t h a t t h e y were conscious, first of a din, and after t h a t of a voice as of a host, " W e are departing hence" ) . 4

This same episode is mentioned in the Aurora Ms. with reference to the rending of the Temple Veil in a citation from the Gospel of the Nazarenes: In evangelio nazarenorum superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse legitur auditasque voces in aere transeamur e x his sedibus ) . 5

This reference to the Gospel of the Nazarenes is of great im­ portance, because it suggests that in some Jewish-Christian circles at least there was thought to be a connection between two of the portents which Josephus and Tacitus record and the death of Jesus. Did the Gospel of the Nazarenes include any others of Josephus' and Tacitus' prodigies? There are certain obvious differences between Josephus' account and that of Acts. In the first place Josephus records the prodigy as foreshadowing the destruction of the Temple, while the account in Acts describes the descent of the Holy Spirit prophesied in the Old Testament and promised in the Gospels ). Secondly there are differences of time; for while Josephus records that these happenings took place at night, according to Acts the Christian Pentecost took place before the third hour of the day ). Thirdly 6

7

x

) P . A . V A N S T E M P V O O R T holds t h a t 'the Christian events did not coincide w i t h the great Jewish festive d a y ' b u t took place a d a y or t w o before it ('Ascension in L u k e and A c t s ' , New Testament Studies, V (1958), 4 1 ) ; b u t A c t s ii 1 can certainly bear the meaning t h a t the outpouring of the Spirit t o o k place on the festival d a y itself. ) A c t s ii 1-4. ) Histories, V , 1 3 . ) Jewish War, 6, 5, 3. Translation from H . St. J. T H A C K E R A Y , op. cit. T h i s is the last of Josephus' prodigies t o be cited in this article. T h e remaining portent concerning Jesus ben A n a n u s is dated b y Josephus t o 'four years before the w a r began', so t h a t it is irrelevant to the hypothesis here presented. ) Op. cit., f. 230. •) A c t s ii 16 ff. ) A c t s ii 1 5 . 2

3

4

5

7

33 there is a difference of locality; for while, according to Josephus, these strange happenings took place in or near the inner Temple, the descent of the Holy Spirit according to Acts took place when the assembly were all together in one place *). While this may have been within the temple precincts ), it could not have been in or near the inner temple itself. On the other hand there are some striking similarities as well as differences between the two stories. It would seem that both occurred on the same day of the same year. Furthermore Josephus describes a quake, a noise, and the voice of a multitude in the Temple, while in Acts there is an account of a noise (of rushing wind), the voices of a multitude (speaking strangely) and (if Acts iv 31 may be regarded as a doublet of Acts ii 1 ff.) ) a quake ) . It may be that some features of the Acts account are not histori­ cal, but that early Christian tradition has affected the details of the story in order to bring out the interpretation that has been given to it. Thus it may be that the strange speech recorded in Acts was in fact glossolalia ) and that the account of men speaking 'in other tongues' ) has been influenced by Jewish tradition about the story of Babel ) in Genesis, or by rabbinic midrash about the Giving of the Law on Mount Sinai ) (which was commemorated as the festival of Pentecost). It may be that the reference to 'tonguesof fire' in Acts has been included in order to bring out the typological 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

x

) A c t s ii 1.

2

)

8

Cf.

F.

F.

B R U C E , op.

cit.,

pp.

55

f.

) Cf. A . H A R N A C K , The Acts of the Apostles ( E . T . , L o n d o n , 1909), p p . 1 7 9 ff. ) L A K E and C A D B U R Y suggest t h a t the 'shaking' was 'not a natural e a r t h q u a k e b u t a supernatural mark of assent in answer t o prayer' (Be­ ginnings of Christianity, ed. F . J A C K S O N and K . L A K E (London, 1933), vol. I V , p. 47); b u t this interpretation is uncertain. ) M . B A R N E T T , in a recent discussion of this problem, concludes t h a t 'the Pentecostal phenomenon was akin to glossolalia a t Corinth and else­ where' (The Living Flame (London, 1953), P - 94- Cf. C. S . C. W I L L I A M S , The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1957), P P - 63 •) A c t s ii 4. ) Cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 1, 1, 4, for the universal language of m a n k i n d ; Philo, De confus. Ling., 3, for God's confounding of the universal language of m a n k i n d w h e n B a b e l was built. According to T e s t . X I I P a t r . (Judah, x x v 3), in the last times 'ye shall be the people of the Lord and h a v e one tongue'. L u k e asserts t h a t with Pentecost the last times h a v e arrived. ) A c c o r d i n g t o Jewish tradition the T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s were understood b y all peoples of all tongues; cf. Philo, De Dec, I X , 1 1 . 4

6

7

8

34 x

fulfilment of the Giving of the Law ). If this is so, there remains, so far as the external phenomena of the Christian Pentecost are concerned, a sudden gale which shook the surroundings of the Temple and which was accompanied by glossolalia on the part of the 'hundred and twenty' gathered together probably in the temple courts. Something remarkable must have happened to the Christian Church that Pentecost. Even though the Holy Spirit may have earlier been bestowed on the disciples ), the sudden growth of the Christian Church and the assurance of its members can hardly be accounted for without some event such as Luke describes in Acts, and it is reasonable to assume that strange happenings occurred that day. It may be that this is what underlies Josephus' tale of what happened at Pentecost in that year. It seems very improbable that his account is an accurate record of what happened. His portent reads more like a pagan story in which the gods of a shrine may be expected to depart before the destruction of their abode ). It is conceivable that the Christian tradition of Pentecost has become altered into a portent of the Temple's destruction. 2

3

A comparison has been made here between certain portents reported by Josephus (most of which are also mentioned by Tacitus) and certain key events of the New Testament ). An attempt has been made to point out certain similarities between the Heilsgeschichte on the one hand, and a list of prodigies on the other hand. These similarities have been shown here in the most favourable light. Yet the differences also are very great, and they must not be underestimated. The stories as recorded in the gospels and in Acts mostly concern miraculous or paranormal events involving or centred on a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. They witness to the meaning of his ministry as that of the Son of Man through 4

*) Cf. the discussion b y K . L A K E in 'The D a y of Pentecost', The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. V , p. 1 1 5 f. F . H . C H A S E , asks 'Was it unnatural t h a t Christians should see a deeper meaning in the sun's rays streaming through the colonnades and the arches of the T e m p l e and resting on the Apostles ?' (The Credibility of the Book of the Acts (London, 1902), p. 35). ) John x x 22. ) E . g . , Pliny, Nat. Hist., X X V I I I , 2, (4) 1 8 ; L i v y , V , 22; cf. P l u t . Ca­ millas, 6 (132). ) S . V . M A C C A S I . A N D . (op. cit., pp. 323-335) has compared Josephus' list of portents with the miracle stories of the Gospels, b u t it never occurred t o h i m t h a t the portents might refer t o events recorded in the N e w T e s t a m e n t , 2

s

4

35 whom God acted to reveal himself to men and to reconcile the world to himself. They cohere with the words of Jesus himself: many of them provide the historical events on which the Christian kerygma may be said to be based; and most of them may not be excised from Christian tradition without great damage to the kerygma itself. On the other hand the prodigies as told by Josephus and Tacitus make no reference to Jesus at all. They are purely negative in character. They are told as portents of the coming desolation in Jerusalem and the imminent destruction of the Temple. None of Josephus' prodigies corresponds exactly to any of the events of the Heilsgeschichte. The question to be asked is this. Are the correspondences in dates, sequence and content sufficiently close to justify the hypothesis that they are due to more than mere coincidence ? If such a hypo­ thesis be entertained, a connection may be explained in one or more of three possible ways. (1) The stories in the gospels and in Acts are derived from nonChristian tradition, and the New Testament tales are a kind of Christian adaptation from Jewish traditions of alleged supernatural portents. This possibility has only to be stated to be rejected outright. The evidence for the events of the Gospels and Acts is far too strong, and the evidence for a Jewish tradition of correspon­ ding portents is far too weak, to bear the hypothesis that the former are derived from the latter. (2) Both traditions, Christian and Jewish, are legends which have developed independently from certain events which had a natural origin. It is true that some of the Christian accounts bear the marks of a certain measure of interpretation *). Furthermore, it is certainly possible that some of the events under discussion may have a natural or paranormal explanation. Nevertheless it is extremely probable, at least in the writer's judgement, that the events under discussion in the gospels and in Acts actually took place, and that they were centred in or concerned with the person of Jesus. x

) Cf. t h e hypothesis a d v a n c e d in this article concerning the disturbance in the T e m p l e leading t o the story of the rending of the temple veil. So far as the Ascension and the G i f t of the Spirit are concerned, these p r o b a b l y took place on E a s t e r D a y itself (John x x 22; cf. John x v i 7). L u k e seems t o h a v e broken u p the primitive u n i t y of G o d ' s a c t in Christ b y divorcing t h e m b o t h from the Resurrection and identifying t h e Ascension w i t h a later a p ­ pearance (and disappearance) of the Risen Lord, and the Gift of the Spirit w i t h the first violent manifestation of the Spirit in the early Church.

36 (3) The traditions represented by Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts are the result of a successful attempt to shift the context of these strange occurrences from their rightful place in Christian origins to the Romano-Jewish conflict. This explanation (if any explanation is called for) would seem to be the most likely. It may be noted that all the portents as told by Josephus can be paralleled in ancient literature, while the gospel events are unique. It is hard to believe that all the portents described by Josephus took place as they are narrated. And yet Josephus must have derived these stories from some source, and they may reasonably be expected to have some foundation of fact. Josephus is not normally particularly interested in recording portents, after the manner of a Suetonius or a Livy, so that such portents as he does record deserve thorough investi­ gation. Furthermore, the precise details of dates in Josephus' narrative increase the probability that his tales were founded on some historical, events. The correspondence in dates, sequence and content between these prodigies and the gospel stories point the way to a possible explanation. The key events of the gospels may have been transformed in Jewish tradition from signs of the New Age into portents of the destruction of the Temple. The writer does not wish to commit himself to the hypothesis that there is a necessary connection between the gospel events and these strange portents, but in his view the correspondences are sufficiently close to justify putting forward the hypothesis that they may be connected, in the hope that others will subject this suggestion to the most rigorous tests of criticism. The suggestion that Josephus might be referring in the passage under discussion to gospel events under the form of Jewish portents raises the question of those passages which explicitly refer to Jesus in the Slavonic version of Josephus' Jewish War. (There is no need to consider the testimonium Flavianum in the Antiquities, as this work was published some time after the Jewish War.) If Josephus' list of portents *) really are connected with the events x

) Cf. S . V . M A C C A S L A N D , op. cit., p. 3 2 5 : "In g i v i n g this list of portents Josephus has used a device which has no parallel, so far as I h a v e been able t o discover, in the writings of a n y of his Jewish or H e b r e w predecessors". R . M . G R A N T (Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam, 1952), p. 184) regarded it as impossible t o decide whether Josephus accepted or rejected the stories t h a t he re-told of the miraculous, while H . D E L L I N G maintained t h a t "Josephus held in c o m m o n

37 of the Heilsgeschichte, then it must be assumed that Josephus himself was ignorant of this connection. It is impossible to believe that Josephus himself was responsible for concocting the RomanoJewish setting in which he relates these prodigies, for Tacitus also records them; nor can it be credibly supposed that Josephus knew that these portents were originally concerned with Jesus and yet included them as prodigies of the future destruction of the Temple. It is admittedly odd that Josephus records so precisely the days of the months on which they are said to have occurred and yet does not date the year of their occurrence: but it may be assumed that the year of their occurrence had already been forgotten (or even deliberately suppressed) in Jewish tradition. The events themselves, supposing that they took place in A.D. 30, would have occurred before Josephus was born . In the Greek text of the Jewish War there is no explicit reference to Jesus or to Christians. In the Slavonic version of the Jewish War, however, (which only became fully known to scholars during this century) there are some passages concerning John the Baptist, Jesus and the early Christians ). There has been considerable debate about their authenticity. Josephus himself writes, in the extant Greek version of his Jewish War, that he had published an earlier Aramaic account of this work ), and BERENDTS held that the Slavonic version is a translation of Josephus* original Aramaic edition and that the Slavonic 'additions' are authentic ). F R E Y held that these 'additions' are very early interpolations, but do not come from the hand of Josephus himself ). EISLER contended 2

3

4

5

w i t h a great number of his contemporaries of the H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n world the almost unbroken belief in prophesies and omens" ('Josephus und das Wunderbare', Novum Testamentum I I (1958), p. 294). *) Josephus was born c. A . D . 37, in the first y e a r of Caligula (cf. Life, I, 5). *) T h e y were first published in E n g l i s h b y G . R . S. M E A D , The gnostic John the Baptiser (London, 1924). T h e y are also to be found in Josephus, ed. H . St. J. T H A C K E R A Y (London, 1928), vol. I l l , p p . 635-58. ) Jewish War, I, 1. There is an e x t a n t Syriac manuscript of the s i x t h book of the Jewish W a r , written in the s i x t h century, w h i c h K O T T E K held was derived not from the Greek edition of the work, b u t from the original A r a m a i c work (op. cit., p. 15 f.). T h . N O L D E K E , however, rightly claimed t h a t it was based on the Greek edition (Liter. Zentralblatt X X V I (1886), pp. 881-4). 8

Cf.

B.

NIESE,

op.

cit.,

vol.

V,

p.

xxi.

*) Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slavischen de hello Judaico des Josephus ( T e x t e und U n t e r s u c h u n g e n 29), Leipzig, 1906. ) Der slavische Josephusbericht uber die urchristliche Geschichte (Dorpat, 1908). 5

38 that the Slavonic version is derived from a Greek translation of the original Aramaic edition, and that, apart from Christian inter­ polations, it represents the original draft of Josephus' work ). J A C K maintained that the Slavonic version of the Jewish War was a twelfth century work based on the extant Greek version of the Jewish War, and that the 'additions' are worthless ). The Slavonic version has some passages which bear on the events under discussion in this article. For example, inserted in 5.5.2, after mention of the three stelae which warned foreigners not to pass beyond the barrier into the inner court of the Temple, there is a reference in the Slavonic version of a fourth title 'announcing that Jesus (the) king did not reign, (but was) crucified (by the Jews), because he prophesied the destruction of the city and the devasta­ tion of the Temple' ) . If this is a genuine part of Josephus' nar­ rative, it does not conflict with the hypothesis suggested in this article; on the contrary, it underlines the connection in Jewish minds between the ministry of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple which, it has been suggested, could have facilitated the shifting of the context of gospel events into the Romano-Jewish conflict. Another 'addition', inserted in 5.5.4, refers to the rending of the Temple veil and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead ). This further passage, if it really was written by Josephus, does not conflict with the hypothesis under consideration. For it never occurred to Josephus, when he wrote the Jewish War, that his sequence of portents may have been connected with Jesus and the events of the Christian gospel. He could have included a reference to the rending of the Temple veil without realising that this tra­ dition was connected with one of his prodigies of the Temple's destruction, just as Eusebius later cited Josephus' account of these portents, alongside the events of the gospel, without suspec­ ting any connection between them ). 1

2

3

4

5

x

) R . E I S L E R , Messiah Jesus ( E . T . , L o n d o n , 1931), p p . 113-64. ) J- W . J A C K , The Historic Christ (London, 1933), p p . 1 1 0 - 1 7 4 . J A C K suggested t h a t the interpolations are due t o an O r t h o d o x counterblast t o a fifteenth c e n t u r y Russian Judaising heresy. ) Josephus, ed. H . S t . J. T H A C K E R A Y , vol. I l l , p. 657. *) Ibid. ) E u s e b i u s of Caesarea w a s familiar w i t h the passage under discussion in Josephus* Jewish War, and he regarded it as of great importance, citing t h e entire passage in Hist. Eccl. 3, 8, 1-9. A s he explains in the preceding section, he quotes this long passage in order t o show t h a t , quite a p a r t from Jesus' prophesy of t h e coming destruction of Jerusalem, 'the divine provia

8

8

39 These remarks presuppose that the Slavonic 'additions' come from Josephus' pen. J. M. CREED, arguing from the Greek text underlying the Slavonic version, from glosses in the Slavonic text and from the internal evidence of some Slavonic 'additions', put forward the view that the Slavonic version of Josephus' Jewish War is a twelfth century adaptation of the extant Greek version *). His arguments have never been satisfactorily demolished ). 2

dence sent wonderful tokens of w h a t would happen t o t h e m (the Jews) if t h e y did n o t repent'. A l t h o u g h Eusebius quotes this passage alongside the gospels, he does not suspect a n y connection between the t w o sets of events which t h e y record. I n t w o further passages (Demonstr. Evang., V I I I , 1 2 1 ; Eclog. Prophet. I l l , 3, 46) Eusebius quotes Josephus' description of the divine a b a n d o n m e n t of the T e m p l e a t Pentecost. H e regards Josephus' account, (written as he emphasises, after the d e a t h of Jesus) as corroboration of the t r u t h t h a t , when the veil of the T e m p l e was rent a t the death of Jesus, t h e power and v a l i d i t y of the Jewish cultus w a s destroyed. Here too Josephus is subpoenaed t o witness t o the result of Jesus' d e a t h in the destruction of the T e m p l e ; b u t it never entered Eusebius' head t o suppose t h a t Josephus could possibly be m a k i n g a reference, however veiled and twisted, t o the events of the Gospels themselves. H e seems t o be unaware t h a t , according t o Jewish tradition, most of Josephus' portents t o o k place forty years before the destruction of the T e m p l e . 1

) J. M . C R E E D , 'The Slavonic Version of Josephus' H i s t o r y of the Jewish War', Harvard Theological Review, X X V (1932), pp. 277-319. ) S. G . F . B R A N D O N , (The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London, 1951), p p . 1 1 4 ff.) offers some objections t o C R E E D ' S hypothesis, and gives a s u m m a r y of recent scholarship on the s u b j e c t ; b u t he is unable t o meet the main points of C R E E D ' S arguments. Cf.- R . D U N K E R L E Y , ' T h e Riddles of Josephus', Hibbert Journal L I I I (1954-5), p p . 127-34. 2