EVIDENCE FROM AGREEMENT WITH OTHER WRITINGS.

One very satisfactory method of testing the credibility of a writer, is to compare his statements with those of other writers with similar opportunities for information. When the writers compared are independent, that is, when neither obtained his information from the other, an agreement on any fact imparts to that fact the degree of probability referred to in Canon V. When they disagree, this raises a question as to the relative credibility of the two writers. Unfortunately, the writers who were contemporary with those of the New Testament, and whose writings have come down to us, are very few, especially those whose subjects led them to speak of the same events, or who possessed the information necessary to speaking of them with any degree of accuracy. Among Jewish writers there is only one, and among Roman writers, three or four.1 Their statements are few, but valuable.

1. Josephus, the most noted of all uninspired Jewish writers, was born in Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar, A. D. 37. This was the third year after the founding of the church in Jerusalem, and the next year after its dispersion under the persecution which arose about Stephen. The death of the elder James, A. D. 44, occurred in the same city when Josephus was seven years old. At the age of nineteen he joined the sect of the Pharisees, who were then extremely hostile to the church, and especially to the apostle Paul and others who preached among the Gentiles. When he was twenty-six years old (A. D. 63), he visited Rome for the purpose of interceding for certain priests whom Felix had sent thither in bonds to defend themselves before Caesar. He suffered shipwreck on the voyage, as Paul had done three years previous, and this visit was made in the year in which Paul was released from his two years' imprisonment in that city. The year previous to this voyage, James, the Lord's brother, was slain in Jerusalem, and Josephus must have been cognizant of the fact. At the beginning of the Jewish war against the Romans, which resulted in the downfall of the Jewish nation, he was in command of the native forces in Galilee, which was then thickly set with Christian churches. He was overpowered and taken prisoner by the Romans, and was a prisoner in the camp of Titus during the last siege of Jerusalem. He spent the rest of his life in Rome, and was for some years the guest of the emperor Vespasian. His principal works are The Antiquities of the Jews, a History of the War with the Romans, and an Autobiography. From the last we have gleaned the facts in his career mentioned above, from which it appears that he lived in the very midst of the times and places in which the Apostles figured, and that he must have had personal knowledge of many of the events mentioned in Acts and the Epistles as having transpired in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee. He died about the year 100.

As Josephus gives a detailed history of his country covering all the period of New Testament History, we might reasonably expect of him an account of the career of Jesus, and of the stirring events in the early history of the Jewish Church. In this we are disappointed; and the omission is doubtless to be accounted for by his connection with the Pharisees. He could have given no truthful account of Jesus or of the Church, which would not have been a story of shame for the sect to which he belonged; and as his chief purpose in writing was to elevate his people in the minds of Greeks and Romans who despised them, national pride and religious bigotry alike demanded silence on this theme. Still, he did not altogether avoid the subject, and we shall now take notice of some of his statements.

a. In stating the cause of a war between Herod the Tetrarch and Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea, he gives a minute account of the intrigue by which the former induced his brother Philip's wife to leave her lawful husband and come to live with him.2 These details are all omitted by the New Testament writers; but Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention the fact of the incestuous marriage, and they all mention it incidentally, as does Josephus. This is a clear case of undesigned agreement between totally independent writers.

b. In his account of the war just mentioned above, Josephus says that Herod's army was destroyed; and that some of the Jews regarded this disaster as a punishment for the murder of "John who was called the Baptist." He then speaks of John as a "good man," as one who "commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism." He gives a false interpretation of John's baptism, but one about as near the truth as might be expected from a Pharisee, and then says that Herod, fearing lest John might raise a rebellion, sent him as a prisoner to the castle of Machaerus, and there beheaded him.3 Here the agreement in matters of fact with well known passages in our first three Gospels is complete, while the omissions, and the motive ascribed to Herod, show that the account given by Josephus is totally independent of the other three.

c. Josephus gives the only account which has come down from the first century of the death of James, the Lord's brother; and in the course of it he calls him "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James."4 The introduction of these two names in this informal way shows clearly that he regarded them as well known to his readers; and as the readers for whom he wrote were the Greeks and Romans of his day, it shows that these two persons, and especially Jesus, were then well known in the heathen world, just as the Scriptures represent them.

d. There is another passage in Josephus, the genuineness of which has been so much disputed, and the spuriousness of which has been conceded by so many eminent defenders of the faith, that we may not base a confident argument on it, and yet it should be known to those who make any study of Evidences. We copy it as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."5 As the plan of this work forbids the use of doubtful evidences, we pass by this passage, and refer those who may wish to study the arguments for and against its genuineness, to Lardner's Credibility for those against it, and to Horne's Introduction for those in favor of it.

2. The first Roman writer whom we cite in this connection is Tacitus. He was born about the middle of the first century; was chosen praetor of Rome in the year 88, and consul in 97. He was author of a Description of Germany; a Life of Agricola (his father-in-law); a History of Rome from Galba to Domitian; and Annals of Rome, from Tiberius to Nero. He is one of the most famous and most reliable of Roman writers, and such is the superiority of his style that the first two of his works are used as text-books of Latin in our best colleges. He closed his career as an author about the year 100.

In giving an account of a fire that consumed about one third of Rome in the reign of Nero, coupled with the belief among the people that it was started and kept up by Nero himself, Tacitus says that Nero sought to turn this suspicion away from himself to the Christians in the city, whom he accused and tortured as if they were guilty. In describing the Christians, he states the following facts: first, that there were Christians in Judea before the death of Christ, and that they derived their name from his; second, that Christ suffered death under Pontius Pilate; third, that belief in him was checked for a time by his death, but that it soon broke out again; fourth, that it spread over Judea, and thence to Rome; fifth, that there was a vast multitude of Christians in Rome at the time of the fire (A. D. 64); sixth, that Nero accused the Christians of causing the fire, and punished them most cruelly; seventh, that their sufferings, believed to be unjust, awakened the sympathy of the people for them.6 These statements would be credited if we had no other evidence to support them. In other words, had the New Testament failed to come down to our age, these statements alone would have furnished an account of the origin, progress and sufferings of the church, in a general outline, substantially as we have them in our New Testament. This information comes to us through a hostile witness, as appears from his bitter words concerning the Christians, saying that they were "held in abhorrence for their crimes;" calling their faith a "pernicious superstition," and classing it among things "horrible and shameful;" and charging them with "hatred to mankind." He even say6 that "those who suffered were guilty, and deserving of some extraordinary punishment." These opprobrious expressions also show that as respects the facts in Christian history which he relates, he was an independent witness; for if he had obtained his information, even in part, from the New Testament writers, he could not have entertained the opinions which he expresses. So far, then, as he supports the statements of the New Testament, he furnishes independent and hostile testimony, which, according to Canon V., very greatly enhances the probability of the facts themselves.

It may be well to remark in passing, that this passage in Tacitus convicts Joseph us of suppressing information concerning Jesus and the Church; for if this heathen writer, living in Rome, and having no personal knowledge of Jewish affairs, was so well informed, Josephus, who lived in Judea, and was surrounded on every side by Christian churches during the first thirty years of his life, must have been still better informed, and must have suppressed much the greater part of what he knew, even if the disputed passage in his writings is genuine. In doing so he suppressed the most important part of the history of his own generation. This is accounted for by his position as a Pharisee, and his consequent hostility to the cause of Christ.

3. The next Roman writer whom we quote is Pliny, called "the younger" to distinguish him from an uncle who bore the same name, and who was also a man of note. He was born at Como, near Milan in Italy, A. D. 61 or 62. He was one of the most elegant of Roman writers, but he devoted his literary efforts chiefly to epistolary writing. He witnessed the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which in the year 79 overwhelmed the cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii, and in which his uncle perished. He wrote in two letters to Tacitus, who was his friend and correspondent, a very graphic account of that tragic event, and the only one that has come down to posterity. He was a consul of Rome in the year 100, and was proconsul of Bythinia under Trajan in the years 106-108.  

When he entered on the administration of Bythinia, he found a fierce persecution by government authority in progress, and for a time he continued it; but finally he wrote a letter to the emperor which furnishes the following points of information: first, a vast number of Christians were then in Bythinia, of every age and rank, of both sexes, and in all parts of the country; second, such was the influence of their teaching, that the heathen temples were almost deserted, and the victims for heathen sacrifices could hardly find a purchaser; third, Pliny was constrained, on account of the vast number of victims of the persecution, to suspend it and write to the emperor for further instruction; fourth, after the most searching inquiry, including the torture of certain Christians to force confessions from them, he had found no vices among them; fifth, they had suffered for the name of being Christians, without the charge of any crime--a procedure of which Pliny doubted the propriety; sixth, those who were Roman citizens were sent to Rome; seventh, on a stated day they were accustomed to hold two meetings, one for singing "in concert" hymns to Christ, and for making vows to live righteously; and the other for eating a "harmless meal."7

These details, though descriptive of scenes that transpired after the close of the New Testament canon, are strikingly confirmatory of the representations in that book. The character of Christians set forth in the two documents, their stated meetings "for a harmless meal'' (the Lord's supper), and for the worship of Christ, their rapid increase where the gospel was preached, and their causeless persecution, are the same. The sending of those who were Roman citizens to Rome for trial, is parallel with this experience of the apostle Paul; and as to other particulars, we learn from the apostle Peter that there were Christians in Bythinia in his day, and that they suffered "for the name of Christ "--they suffered "as Christians," even when they were charged with no crime (I. Pet. iv. 12-19).  

These testimonies from independent and hostile writers not only confirm the facts attested by them in common with the New Testament writers, so as to place them beyond all doubt, but they go farther: they give good ground to believe that if the details mentioned by these secular writers had been more numerous, the points of agreement would have extended proportionately; in other words, by showing that our New Testament writers are accurate so far as we are able thus to test them, they justify the inference that they are accurate throughout their narratives. It should be noted, however, that had we found some discrepancies between these two classes of writers, the preference would belong of right to those of the New Testament, seeing that they were the better informed on the main subject.

1 Why the latter are so few is satisfactorily explained by Renan, as follows: "As to the Greek and Latin writers, it is not surprising that they paid little attention to a movement which they could not comprehend, and which was going on within a narrow space foreign to them. Christianity was lost to their vision upon the dark background of Judaism. It was only a family quarrel among the subjects of a degraded nation; why trouble themselves about it?" (Apostles, 227).

2 Ant., xviii. 5. 1.

3 Ant., xvii. 5, 2.

4 Ib., xx. 9. 1.

5 Ant., xviii. 3, 3.

6 Tacitus says, speaking of the fire that consumed Rome in Nero's time, and of the general belief that he had caused it: "In order, therefore, to put a stop to the report, he laid the guilt and inflicted the severest punishments upon a set of people who were held in abhorrence for their crimes, and called by the vulgar Christians. The founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, under his procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for a while, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, where the evil originated, but through Rome also, whither all things horrible and shameful find their way and are practised. Accordingly the first who were apprehended confessed, and then on their information a vast multitude were convicted, not so much of the crime of setting Rome on fire, as of hatred to mankind. And when they were put to death, mockery was added to their sufferings; for they were either disguised in the skins of wild beasts and worried to death by dogs, or they were clothed in some inflammable covering, and when the day closed were burned as lights to illumine the night. Nero lent his own gardens for this exhibition, and also held the shows of the circus, mingling with the people in the dress of a charioteer, or observing the spectacle from his chariot. Wherefore, although those who suffered were guilty, and deserving of some extraordinary punishment, yet they came to be pitied, as victims not so much to the public good, as to the cruelty of one man." (Annals, xv. 44.)

7 Pliny's Letter to Trajan: "It is my custom, sir, to refer to you all things about which I am in doubt. For who Is more capable of directing my hesitancy, or instructing my ignorance? I have never been present at any trials of the Christians; consequently I do not know what is the nature of their crimes, or the usual strictness of their examination, or the severity of their punishment. I have, moreover, hesitated not a little whether any distinction was to be made in respect to age, or whether those of tender years were to be treated the same as adults; whether repentance entitles them to pardon, or whether it shall avail nothing for him who has once been a Christian, to renounce his error; whether the name itself, even without any crime, should subject them to punishment, or only the crimes connected with the name.

"In the mean time I have pursued this course toward those who have been brought before me as Christians. I have asked them whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I repeated the question a second and a third time, adding threats of punishment. If they still persevered, I ordered them to be led away to punishment; for I could not doubt, whatever the nature of their profession might be, that a stubborn and unyielding obstinacy certainly deserved to be punished. There were others also under the like infatuation; but as they were Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to the capital. But the crime spread, as is wont to happen, even while the persecutions were going on, and numerous instances presented themselves. An information was presented to me without any name subscribed, accusing a large number of persons, who denied that they were Christians, or had ever been. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and made offerings with frankincense and wine before your statue, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose, together with the images of the gods; and moreover they reviled Christ; whereas those who are truly Christians, it is said, can not be forced to any of these things. I thought, therefore, that they ought to be discharged. Others, who were accused by witnesses confessed that they were Christians, but afterwards denied it. Some owned that they had been Christians, but said they had renounced their error, some three years before, others more, and a few even as long ago as twenty years. They all did homage to your statue and the images of the gods, and at the same time reviled the name of Christ. They declared that the whole of their guilt or error was that they were accustomed to meet on a stated day before it was light, and to sing in concert a hymn of praise to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the perpetration of any wickedness, but that they would not commit any theft, robbery, or adultery, nor violate their word, nor refuse when called upon to restore anything committed to their trust. After this they were accustomed to separate and then to re-assemble to eat in common a harmless meal. Even this, however, they ceased to do, after my edict, in which, agreeably to your commands, I forbade the meeting of secret assemblies. After hearing this I thought it the more necessary to find out the truth, by putting to the torture two female slaves, who were called deaconesses. But I could discover nothing but a perverse and extravagant superstition; and therefore I deferred all further proceedings until I could consult with you. For the matter appears tome worthy of such consultation, especially on account of the number of those who are involved in peril. For many of every age, of every rank, and of either sex, are exposed, and will be exposed to danger. Nor has the contagion of this superstition been confined to the cities only, but it has extended to the villages, and even to the country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to arrest the evil, and to apply a remedy. At least it is very evident that the temples, which had already been almost deserted, begin to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities, so long interrupted, are again revived; and the victims, which could hardly find a purchaser, are now everywhere in demand. From this it is easy to imagine what a multitude of men might be reclaimed, if pardon should be offered to those who repent." (Epistles of Pliny, x. 97).