2. The Testimony of External Witnesses

Christ came unrecognized. Few of his contemporaries, or even of those who heard Him, understood who He was. The meaning of His preaching and the significance of His work were not immediately revealed to many. Whoever has known Him believes; and the testimony of believers is preserved in the books of the New Testament. Those who did not recognize had no reason to attach great importance to His life and work, had no motives to talk much about Him. Therefore, it can be said in advance that it would be in vain to look for detailed testimonies about Christ in the writings of people alien to the Church in the first decades of Christian history. In addition, the Greeks and Romans had no reason to touch upon the events that took place in distant Palestine; in their eyes it was a remote province, the fate of which they had little interest in. The pagan world learned about Christianity only when the apostolic preaching went beyond the borders of Palestine and went around all the lands. But even then, for a long time, in pagan perception, Christians differed little from Jews. Only among Jewish contemporaries can one look for early mentions of Christ. However, a reservation should be made here as well. The Jewish people did not recognize Him either. In the eyes of the unbelieving Jews, He was only one of many teachers and preachers, and they had no reason to single Him out of the crowd. In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the speech of one of the Pharisaic teachers of the law, Gamaliel, is narrated in the Sanhedrin. He restrained from severe measures against the evangelists of Christianity. "For not long before this Theudas appeared, pretending to be someone great, and about four hundred men joined him: but he was killed, and all who obeyed him were scattered and disappeared. After him, during the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and carried away with him a number of people; but he perished, and all who obeyed him were scattered. And now, I say to you, leave these people and leave them; for if this enterprise and this work be of men, it will be destroyed" (Acts 5:34-38)... This speech is very characteristic of the first years of Christian history. The bloody persecution of the Church of God by the Judaists began early. But there was little inner attention to Christianity in the Jewish environment. Later, when Christian preaching became stronger and stronger, Jewish writers had reason to keep silent about it, to cast a shadow of oblivion on both Christ and the Church. That is why not only is it not surprising that there is a paucity of "external" news about Christ in these first decades of our chronology, but we should expect this paucity as a completely natural phenomenon.

In the first century AD, the fate and life of the Jewish people was described by the famous Jewish historian Josephus. He was born about 37 A.D. and died in Rome about 100 A.D. He wrote his "Jewish Archaeology" in Rome, in the years of his old age, and finished it about 93-94 A.D. In this book he touches on the events and persons of the Gospel history three times. One testimony relates to John the Baptist. Joseph speaks of him as a "virtuous man" who urged the Jews to strive for virtue, so that they, observing justice in mutual relations, and due reverence for God, would approach baptism. People flocked to him, and the number of his listeners was great. Fearing his influence on the people, fearing a popular uprising, Herod ordered John to be arrested and imprisoned, and then put to death (XVIII. 5). The authenticity and reliability of this report of Josephus Flavius did not and does not raise any doubts. And the same must be said about Josephus's mention of the death of James, "the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ," and others who were stoned for breaking the law by the sentence of the Sanhedrin under the high priest Annas (XX. 9). It was in 62. Joseph was living in Jerusalem at that time and speaks, obviously, from personal recollections. He gives James the name by which he was known. In both reports one senses an external observer, who notes facts to which he attaches little importance. In addition, he conveys them as political events. Josephus wrote in Greek, not for his countrymen, but for the Romans, and everywhere he avoided speaking of anything that might cast a shadow of political unreliability on his people in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Therefore, he hushed up the messianic aspirations of his people and tried to give the idea of the Jews as calm and good-natured citizens, alien to any rebellious designs. He ingratiated himself with the Roman authorities. And for the same reason, it was natural for him to avoid talking about Christianity, which by the end of the first century had begun to attract the unfavorable attention of the authorities as some kind of rebellious conspiracy. Nevertheless, Joseph has a direct testimony of Christ. There have long been disputes around him and doubts have been expressed whether an unbelieving Jew could speak of Christ in this way. Speaking of the time of Pontius Pilate, Joseph says, among other things, as follows: "At the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if he be called a man, for he was a doer of wonderful things, a teacher of men who gladly received the truth. He attracted many to himself as Jews. and from the Hellenes. It was Christ (the Messiah). And when Pilate, on the complaint of our nobles, condemned him to death on the cross, those who had previously loved him did not depart from Him (did not cease to love him). For He appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had foretold of this and many other miraculous things concerning Him. Even now the generation of Christians named after him has not ceased" (XVIII. 3). In its entirety, this testimony is difficult to recognize as authentic and belonging to Joseph. Of course, he could not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, recognize His resurrection. It is hardly denying, however, that Joseph mentioned Christ at all. It would be more correct to assume that its original report was altered and inserted later, at any rate quite early, since already at the beginning of the fourth century it was given in its present form by the then historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his "Church History". In any case, in all the surviving manuscripts of the "Archaeology" of Josephus Flavius, one reads a controversial passage about Christ. And it must be confessed that Josephus could well have written the words emphasized in the above excerpt. Perhaps Origen read Joseph's news in this original form, reproaching him for not believing in Jesus as the Messiah, "not acknowledging him as the Messiah," and wondering that he nevertheless testified to the great righteousness of James. As if Origen had in mind some kind of direct non-recognition of Joseph. In a Syrian monument, probably of the fifth century, which recounts the disputes at the Sassanid court between a Greek, a Jew and a Christian, Josephus assimilates the testimony of Christ as "a righteous and good man, testified by divine grace by signs, and benefited many by miracles." Probably, such a brief mention was limited to the initial reading of the news in Joseph. Very many modern scholars admit that Joseph was speaking of Christ, although his message cannot be assimilated to him in its present form. However, even Joseph's complete silence would not mean that he did not know about Christ. You can not speak not only from ignorance, but also from inattention and unwillingness to say. Joseph had many reasons for deliberate silence. He wrote not a history, but an apology for his people, he did not strive for completeness, but always considered it permissible to keep silent about what might disturb Roman suspicion. Equally understandable is the omission of Christ in another first-century Jewish historian, Justus of Tiberias. And he did not write history in the proper sense of the word. But the historical pamphlet against Joseph, and most of all, tried to prove his betrayal of the precepts and interests of his native people. He didn't need to talk about Christ. And in general, he was very brief and did not talk about many things at all. Justus' book has not come down to us at all, and it is only from the words of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (ninth century), who was still reading it, that Justus did not mention Christ in his chronicle.

The "Archaeology" of Josephus is generally the only Jewish monument of the first century in which one could look for evidence of Christianity. Another famous Jewish writer of the first century, who wrote in Greek, Philo of Alexandria, died too early (soon after the year 40) to be able to speak about Christ, especially since he lived in Palestine and had to learn about the affairs there at second hand. We do not know the rabbinical literature of the first century at all. All the rabbinic sources that have come down to us are not older than the second half of the second century, and they bear the stamp of a different time than the New Testament time, the time of Christ. There is a lot of information about Christ in the Talmud, but all of them are of later origin and represent an obvious distortion and blasphemous alteration of the Gospel texts. By the very purpose and content of the Talmud, there was no place in it for a historical story about Christ. Here we are talking about rites and moral or legal decrees, the opinions and sayings of individual teachers are transmitted. This is not a historical book at all. Most of the Talmud's references to Christians are caused by polemical motives. From the very beginning, the Jews were haters of Christianity and the first instigators of persecution. And it seems that the oldest Jewish evidence of Christianity is the curse of the Nazarenes and the "heretics" ("mins", minim) in the daily prayer of Shmoneh Ezre, dating back to the very end of the first century (80-100 AD). The Talmud avoids calling Jesus by name, designating Him vaguely: "that man", "some". In the eyes of Judaists, Christians are dangerous dreamers, believing in "someone," in "somebody." Perhaps in two or three places a softer and more ancient attitude towards the person of Christ Himself shines through the general hatred. But in general, the spirit of enmity prevails. From this hatred and enmity is born the Jewish lampoon against Christ. It is already mentioned by Justin the Philosopher (in the second century), and it was apparently used by Celsus in his book against Christianity (also in the second century), on which Origen wrote his famous refutation (in the first half of the third century). Celsus collected in his book everything that malicious Judaism and perplexed paganism knew about Christianity and accused it. It would be in vain to look for historical truth in these reports. But all the more characteristic and expressive in this tension of slander and slander is the complete absence of any doubt about the historical reality of Jesus himself. For the rabbis and Jews who cursed and persecuted Christianity, Jesus was a historical personage, and their hatred and malice are directed to the historical image. They told shameful and filthy fables about Christ, but they never denied that he lived. And through the murky veil of hateful limes, some historical features of the Gospel image shine through, and, above all, the memory of the miracles of Christ. The Jews remember and know that He performed miracles, but they interpret it in their own way, calling Jesus a sorcerer and seducer of the people, a magician and a necromancer. So it is in the Talmud, and in those denunciators of Christianity, about whom we learn from the ancient Christian apologists. Among these monuments of ancient Christian polemics against the Jews, the most remarkable is the "Conversation with Tryphon the Jew" by St. Justin Martyr (mid-second century). The dispute with the Jews boiled down to the question of the person of Christ. Whether Christ could be the Messiah promised and foretold by the prophets, whether His shameful death on the cross did not cast shadows on His person and His work – this was the temptation of the Jews. This is the same old "temptation of the cross". "You do not observe feasts or Sabbaths, you do not have circumcision, but you put your trust in the crucified man, and yet you hope to receive good from God without fulfilling His commandments" - this is the main reproach of Tryphon the Jew (Discourse, 10). "This Christ you call was inglorious and dishonored, so that he was subjected to the most extreme curse that is prescribed in the law of God, he was crucified on the cross" (32). This was the temptation of the Jews. We do not find any traces of their doubts about the historicity of Christ. Justin the Martyr tells the entire earthly life of Jesus, and his Jewish interlocutor only interprets it differently, but does not object to the facts themselves. And so does the Jew in Celsus, who, moreover, directly refers to the "Scriptures" and the "gospel" of Christians, without any hint of their unreliability, except, of course, the story of the resurrection. – The Jewish enemies of Christianity knew about Christ, and the paucity of Jewish information about His life has the character of deliberate silence about Him. And about Ap. The Talmud does not speak, and yet in it one constantly hears a direct and deliberate polemic with the teaching and preaching of the Apostle. The interlocutor of St. Justin speaks directly about the prohibition of arguing with Christians: "It would be better to follow the advice of the rabbis, who have decreed not to argue with any of you; nor should we have started a conversation with you" (38). Are these not echoes of Gamaliel's advice?

In Rome, they learned about Christ when they met with Christians. The historian Suetonius (wrote about 120 A.D., in his biography of Nero mentions the persecution of Christians as not a kind of new and accursed superstitions (On the Life of the Caesars, XVI, 2)). In the biography of Imp. Claudius (41-45) he speaks of the expulsion from Rome of "the Jews, who were constantly agitated under the influence of Chrestus" (Chresto impulsore, - XXV. 3). The question may arise whether the latter news applies to Christians. It should be remembered that Tacitus also writes: Christians. The example of Tertullian shows that in the West, even before the beginning of the third century, the Greek chrystianoi was read and pronounced with e, chrestiani, and not with i. In the apologists of the second century we find a play on words on this point: chrystos in Greek means useful, and St. Justin says that if we are judged only by the name for which we are accused, "we are the most useful people." Therefore, the unusual spelling of the name in Suetonius is quite consistent with the usage of the word at that time. Christ is precisely Christ. And the fact that Suetonius does not add to this name "some" or "someone" shows that he assumed this name to be known. He could easily confuse Christians with Jews. From his words it is not at all clear that the Chrestus he calls lived in Rome. He only connects the Roman agitation of the Jews with his personality. From the words of Suetonius we can conclude that, at the first appearance of Christians on the Roman stage, they were placed in connection with the historical figure of Christ. It is unlikely that Suetonius was interested in further details. Rather, he showed the same indifferent inattention to Christians as his friend Pliny the Younger, who, as governor of the regions of Bethnia and Pontus, met with Christians there around 110-113. Reporting on them, Imp. Trajan, he notes, among other things, that at their meetings they "sing a song to Christ as God." There is only one name here, without any explanation. Pliny adds that "real Christians" cannot be persuaded either to participate in pagan worship or to "curse Christ." Pliny speaks mildly of the Christians themselves, but considers them crude superstitions (Letters, X. 96). He was apparently not interested in investigating this superstition in more detail. And the Roman authorities were then interested in Christians only from the point of view of public order. The "Annals" of the famous Tacitus (written around 110-117) date back to about the same time. He mentions Christ in connection with the persecution of Nero. The authenticity of this story of Tacitus must be recognized as proven beyond doubt. According to Tacitus, in order to deflect the suspicion of setting fire to Rome, Nero blamed it on "people whom the people already hated for their vices and called Chrestians (chrestianos)." This name comes from Christ, who in the "reign of Trajan was punished by the procurator Pontius Pilate." "This impious superstition, suppressed for a time, flared up again, and not only in Judea, where this evil began, but also in the City, where all abominable and shameful things flow and are committed" (XV. 44). Tacitus' testimony attests to the historical reality of Christ, "crucified under Pontius Pilate," for an unbelieving pagan at the turn of the first and second centuries. One can raise the question of the sources of Tacitus' message about Christ. Surely this is not a Jewish source, since a Jew would not call Jesus Christ (i.e., the Messiah). It is equally certain that this is not a Christian source. It remains to recognize the Roman source. It is hardly possible to see here the official acts of the imperial archives; according to Tacitus, he was inaccessible to him as well. In this archive, indeed, the reports of the provincial governors should have been stored, but it is unlikely that they were available to private individuals. St. Justin Martyr in his Apology, submitted about 150 A.D. Antonina Pius, in confirmation of the reality of Christ's death on the cross and His miracles, invites him to verify his words according to the "acts under Pontius Pilate" (35 and 48); Tertullian in his Apology (about 197) mentions Pilate's report to Tiberdius (ch. 5). In reality, of course, these are not links to an available source, but a call for verification. And it shows an indisputable confidence in the historical authenticity of the story of Christ. The "Acts of Pilate" and Pilate's letter to Imp. Claudia are certainly not authentic and belong to a later time.

To this cursory news can be added a letter from an unknown Syrian Stoic Mara to his son Serapion (probably 73-160 AD), which has survived in a Syriac manuscript of the sixth century. In support of her advice to neglect the wealth and perishable glory of this world and to avoid its passions and vanity, Mara refers to the sad fate of the sages. What did Athens gain from the death of Socrates, or the Samians from the burning of Pythagoras, or the Jews from the deposition of their wise king, for since that time their kingdom has been taken away from them (cf. Matt. 27:37) and they have been scattered everywhere from their land. Everyone was punished. And the slain wise men are not dead: the wise king of the Jews also lives, "because of the new law which he gave." Here is a dull and unclear memory of Christ.

In general, we learn very, very little about Christ from "outsiders." This is not surprising. The ancients wrote from their own point of view, they had their own standards of importance and interest. The Jews treated Christianity with irritation, the Greeks and Romans with contempt, "Jewish blindness" and "pagan impiety" met with each other. None of the "outsiders" set themselves the direct and special task of telling about Christ and Christians in these early years, and there is nothing strange in this. They did not anticipate or admit the historical future of Christianity, for the majority it was an empty and insignificant superstition. Only later did the pagan world recognize and feel a dangerous enemy in the Church. Then the pagan writers angrily attacked Christians and their faith. But again, no one ever expressed the slightest doubt about the real existence of the One from Whose name the Christians are so called. This silence is much more eloquent and convincing than that imaginary silence about which the opponents of the historicity of Christ hastily conclude from the paucity of "external" news. Moreover, Christians were accused above all and above all of veneration of a man, and moreover crucified. The Jews accused them of this. As we know from St. Justin. The pagans also accused them of this. The Stoic Fronto, as we learn from the defensive dialogue of Minucius Felix (circa 180-200), accused Christians of worshipping a man punished for evil deeds with a terrible punishment and of bowing down before the wood of the Cross (Octavius, ch. Lucian of Samosata in his book "On the Death of Perigrinus" says the following about the Christians: "They still highly revere the man crucified in Palestine", "worship the crucified sophist", their legislator (Chapter XIII; written about 170). And, finally, at about the same time, Celsus, who has already been mentioned more than once, in his extensive book against Christians, first of all attacks the veneration of a humiliated person. In the life of Christ, he does not find anything heroic and great. "How could we recognize as God one who did not fulfill anything that, according to rumors circulated among the people, he promised? And when we have denounced him and found him worthy of execution, he seeks to hide and flee in the most shameful way, but betrays himself to one of those whom he called his disciples"... Celsus puts his words in the mouth of the Jew, for the Jews were its main source. He retells the Gospel story with mockery. The veneration of Jesus Christ angers and angers him. And not a word, not a hint of unreliability... And it is clear to us why the ancient Christian writers did not stop at defending the historical reality of Christ – no one ever doubted it, it was beyond doubt and dispute. For the pagan world, Christianity was the veneration of the "historical Christ".

3. The testimony of the first Christian.

Who was Jesus Christ? There have been disputes around this issue since apostolic times. Not in the Church, for from the beginning it contained an immutable faith in Christ as the God-man, the Son of God, who became "man among men." But around the Church, in circles touched by the Gospel, but not accepting the apostolic preaching in the purity and simplicity of faith. These disputes have never been about the very existence of Christ. Divisions arose on the question of Who He was. And, again, the very opinions rejected and refuted by the Church show the universal conviction of the historical existence of Christ. In short, false interpretations tended to two opposite limits. For some (these were the Judeo-Christians) Jesus was only a great teacher and prophet - thus He was for them a historical person. Others were seduced precisely by the historical realism of the circumstances and events of His earthly life, they interpreted them in their own way, affirming only the appearance of His suffering and death. This "docetism" (from the Greek dokeomai – seeming) in all its insistence becomes understandable precisely in contrast to the historical realism of the Gospel narratives and the apostolic preaching. Docetism is not a historical, but a theological theory. And the Docetists did not deny in the least that what is told in the Gospels really happened at a certain time and in certain circumstances. And could be seen and described. They believed that Christ was not, but only seemed to be a man, appeared as a man. They did not doubt the historical merit and authenticity of the Gospel history, although they were engaged in an imaginary correction of the Gospel text, cutting and changing it. But they interpreted in their own way the meaning of the Gospel story, the meaning of the Incarnation and Theophany. The early, firm and decisive rebuff which the precetic temptations met in the Church once again confirms the indisputable and primordial nature of Christian realistic realism. The ancient Church with all its power, on the basis of the New Testament, affirmed the fullness and reality of mankind in Christ, but never admitted that he was only a man. By confessing that Christ is God, His real, historical, Gospel image was not in the least blurred. In the Christian understanding, historical reality is given an exceptional, decisive importance from the very beginning. The whole meaning of the original, ancient perception of Christ lies in the fact that God appeared in a living and individual human form, not only the signs of God, but also the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Christian antiquity was neither talkative nor verbose. It did not seek additions to the Gospels, and even cut them off when restless curiosity made them, perhaps on the basis of vague traditions and memories, as evidenced by the history of the early New Testament canon and the rejection of the apocrypha, the "renounced books." Incidentally, everything in them is full of historical, although not always theological realism, and in spite of the often restrained play of imagination, a solid historical foundation is felt in them. The Church preserved and contemplated the complete and integral face of the living and real Christ in a single "fourfold Gospel." She kept and explained. In the early Christian monuments it is in vain to look for a detailed historical narrative - they presuppose a well-known Gospel story, known not only from the Scriptures, but also from the unceasing oral gospel. The early Christian monuments are short and concise. These are letters and epistles composed for the occasion. And in them one should not look for an exhaustive and systematic exposition of the faith. But in them the living historical feeling of Christ's Face is expressed with all its power and vividness. Later, in the second century, more extensive Christian works appeared, also written on occasion, for protection from outsiders and from false brethren. Christian literature was gradually formed and developed. But the old spirit breathes in her too. A few examples are enough.

The Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch date back to the very edge of the first and second centuries A.D. (107-117 A.D.). There can be no serious doubts about this date. These are letters from the path to the Churches of Asia Minor, from the path of martyrdom to Rome, in order to become a victim of the sentence that had already taken place. These letters are imprinted with the spirit of living historical realism, which is in no way weakened by the thirst for a martyr's crown and separation from the outside world, which has already been accomplished in anticipation and will. Without any restrictions, St. Ignatius confesses Jesus Christ as God and boldly speaks of the "blood of God," of the "sufferings of God," but not of "God revealed in human form" and "made flesh." Christ is God, "perfectly made man," born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, "at once both the son of man and the son of God." His earthly life was not only a phenomenon. Against the Docetists, St. Ignatius strongly emphasizes the reality and fullness of Christ's human life. He was descended from the seed of David, was born of a virgin, was baptized by John, was pierced for us on the cross under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, and was resurrected. His sufferings are salvific, and He really, and not only visibly, suffered. In reality, his sufferings are all their saving power. To deny the reality of the incarnation is to deny Jesus Christ completely, and it is to be death-bearers. And Christ was resurrected in real flesh, tangible with hands, not some "demon without a body," and He drank and ate with the disciples. St. Ignatius persistently repeats this chronological reference – "under Pontius Pilate." He wants in every possible way to emphasize the historical concreteness of the image and life of Christ. This is all his hope, he lives by the historical image of Christ. In the Epistles of St. Ignatius it is the same as in the New Testament – there is no difference in spirit and perception. St. Ignatius also coincides with his friend, St. Polycarp of Smyrna. The same faith in the God-Man and the same confession of the real Incarnation. Both of them fight against Docetism.